Calvin's Institutes: Of the Popish mass. How it not
only profanes, but annihilates the Lord's Supper

Calvin's Institutes Book Fourth: Of the Holy Catholic
Church.

Chapter 18. Of the Popish
mass. How it not only profanes, but annihilates the Lord's
Supper.

The principal heads of this
chapter are, - I. The abomination of the Mass, sec. 1. Its manifold
impiety included under five heads, sec. 2-7. Its origin described,
sec. 8, 9. II. Of the name of sacrifice which the ancients gave to
the holy Supper, sec. 10-12. An apposite discussion on sacrifice,
refitting the arguments of the Papists for the sacrifice of the Mass,
sec. 13-18. III. A summary of the doctrine of the Christian Church
respecting the sacraments, paving the way for the subsequent
discussion of the five sacraments, falsely so called, sec. 19,
20.

Sections.

1. The chief of all the
abominations set up in opposition to the Lord's Supper is the Papal Mass. A description of
it.

2. Its impiety is five-fold. 1.
Its intolerable blasphemy in substituting priests to him the only
Priest. Objections of the Papists answered.

3. Impiety of the Mass
continued. 2. It overthrows the cross of Christ by setting up an
altar. Objections answered.

4. Other objections
answered.

5. Impiety of the Mass
continued. 3. It banishes the remembrance of Christ's death. It
crucifies Christ afresh. Objections answered.

6. Impiety of the Mass
continued. 4. It robs us of the benefit of Christ's death.

7. Impiety of the Mass
continued. 5. It abolishes the Lord's Supper. In the Supper the
Father offers Christ to us; in the Mass, priestlings offer Christ to
the Father. The Supper is a sacrament common to all Christians; the
Mass confined to one priest.

8. The origin of the Mass.
Private masses an impious profanation of the Supper.

9. This abomination unknown to
the purer Church. It has no foundation in the word of God.

10. Second part of the chapter.
Some of the ancients call the Supper a sacrifice, but not
propitiatory, as the Papists do the Mass. This proved by passages
from Augustine.

11. Some of the ancients seem
to have declined too much to the shadows of the law.

12. Great distinction to be
made between the Mosaic sacrifices and the Lord's Supper, which is
called a eucharistic sacrifice. Same rule in this discussion.

13. The terms sacrifice and
priest. Different kinds of sacrifices. 1. Propitiatory. 2.
Eucharistic. None propitiatory but the death of Christ.

14. The Lord's Supper not
properly called a propitiatory sacrifice, still less can the Popish
Mass be so called. Those who mutter over the Mass cannot be called
priests.

15. Their vanity proved even by
Plato.

16. To the Eucharistic class of
sacrifice belong all offices of piety and charity. This species of
sacrifice has no connection with the appeasing of God.

17. Prayer, thanksgiving, and
other exercises of piety, called sacrifices. In this sense the Lord's
Supper called the eucharist. In the same sense all believers are
priests.

18. Conclusion. Names given to
the Mass.

19. Last part of the chapter,
recapitulating the views which ought to be held concerning
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Why the Lord's Supper is, and Baptism is not,
repeated.

20. Christians should be
contented with these two sacraments. They are abolished by the
sacraments decreed by men.

1. By these and similar
inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred
Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be
preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only
obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished,
vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man; namely, when,
with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into
the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining
the remission of sins. I say nothing as to the way in which the
sounder schoolmen at first received this dogma. I leave them with
their puzzling subtleties which, however they may be defended by
cavilling, are to be repudiated by all good men, because all they do
is to envelop the brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding
adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here
combating that opinion with which the Roman Antichrist and his
prophets have imbued the whole world, viz., that the mass is a work
by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the
oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory
victim by which they regain the favour of God. And this is not merely
the common opinion of the vulgar, but the very act has been so
arranged as to be a kind of propitiation, by which satisfaction is
made to God for the living and the dead. This is also expressed by
the words employed, and the same thing may be inferred from daily
practice. I am aware how deeply this plague has struck its roots;
under what a semblance of good it conceals its true character,
bearing the name of Christ before it, and making many believe that
under the single name of Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith.
But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God,
that this mass, however glossed and splendid, offers the greatest
insult to Christ, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death
to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey,
enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of
his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most
powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it?
Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the
lurking evil?

2. Let us show, therefore as
was proposed in the first place, that in the mass intolerable
blasphemy and insult are offered to Christ. For he was not appointed
Priest and Pontiff by the Fathers for a time merely, as priests were
appointed under the Old Testament. Since their life was mortal, their
priesthood could not be immortal, and hence there was need of
successors, who might ever and anon be substituted in the room of the
dead. But Christ being immortal, had not the least occasion to have a
vicar substituted for him. Wherefore he was appointed by his Father a
priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek, that he might
eternally exercise a permanent priesthood. This mystery had been
typified long before in Melchizedek, whom Scripture, after once
introducing as the priest of the living God, never afterwards
mentions, as if he had had no end of life. In this way Christ is said
to be a priest after his order. But those who sacrifice daily must
necessarily give the charge of their oblations to priests, whom they
surrogate as the vicars and successors of Christ. By this subrogation
they not only rob Christ of his honour, and take from him the
prerogative of an eternal priesthood, but attempt to remove him from
the right hand of his Father, where he cannot sit immortal without
being an eternal priest. Nor let them allege that their priestlings
are not substituted for Christ, as if he were dead, but are only
substitutes in that eternal priesthood, which therefore ceases not to
exist. The words of the apostle are too stringent to leave them any
means of evasion, viz., "They truly were many priests, because they
were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man,
because he continueth ever, has an unchangeable priesthood," (Heb. 7:
23, 24.) Yet such is their dishonesty, that to defend their impiety
they arm themselves with the example of Melchizedek. As he is said to
have "brought forth (obtulisse) bread and wine," (Gen. 14: 18,) they
infer that it was a prelude to their mass, as if there was any
resemblance between him and Christ in the offering of bread and wine.
This is too silly and frivolous to need refutation. Melchizedek gave
bread and wine to Abraham and his companions, that he might refresh
them when worn out with the march and the battle. What has this to do
with sacrifice? The humanity of the holy king is praised by Moses:
these men absurdly coin a mystery of which there is no mention. They,
however, put another gloss upon their error, because it is
immediately added, he was "priest of the most high God." I answer,
that they erroneously wrest to bread and wine what the apostle refers
to blessing. "This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most
high God, who met Abraham," "and blessed him." Hence the same apostle
(and a better interpreter cannot be desired) infers his excellence.
"Without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better." But
if the oblation of Melchizedek was a figure of the sacrifice of the
mass, I ask, would the apostle, who goes into the minutes details,
have forgotten a matter so grave and serious? Now, however they
quibble, it is in vain for them to attempt to destroy the argument
which is adduced by the apostle himself viz., that the right and
honour of the priesthood has ceased among mortal men, because Christ,
who is immortal, is the one perpetual priest.

3. Another iniquity chargeable
on the mass is, that it sinks and buries the cross and passion of
Christ. This much, indeed, is most certain, - the cross of Christ is
overthrown the moment an altar is erected. For if, on the cross, he
offered himself in sacrifice that he might sanctify us for ever, and
purchase eternal redemption for us, undoubtedly the power and
efficacy of his sacrifice continues without end. Otherwise, we should
not think more honourably of Christ than of the oxen and calves which
were sacrificed under the law, the offering of which is proved to
have been weak and inefficacious because often repeated. Wherefore,
it must be admitted, either that the sacrifice which Christ offered
on the cross wanted the power of eternal cleansing, or that he
performed this once for ever by his one sacrifice. Accordingly, the
apostle says, "Now once in the end of the world has he appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Again: "By the which act
we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
once for all." Again: "For by one offering he has perfected for ever
them that are sanctified." To this he subjoins the celebrated
passage: "Now, where remission of these is, there is no more offering
for sin." The same thing Christ intimated by his latest voice, when,
on giving up the ghost, he exclaimed, "It is finished." We are
accustomed to observe the last words of the dying as oracular.
Christ, when dying, declares, that by his one sacrifice is perfected
and fulfilled whatever was necessary to our salvation. To such a
sacrifice, whose perfection he so clearly declared, shall we, as if
it were imperfect, presume daily to append innumerable sacrifices?
Since the sacred word of God not only affirms, but proclaims and
protests, that this sacrifice was once accomplished, and remains
eternally in force, do not those who demand another charge it with
imperfection and weakness? But to what tends the mass which has been
established, that a hundred thousand sacrifices may be performed
every day, but just to bury and suppress the passion of our Lord, in
which he offered himself to his Father as the only victim? Who but a
blind man does not see that it was Satanic audacity to oppose a truth
so clear and transparent? I am not unaware of the impostures by which
the father of lies is wont to cloak his frauds viz., that the
sacrifices are not different or various, but that the one sacrifice
is repeated. Such smoke is easily dispersed. The apostle, during his
whole discourse, contends not only that there are no other
sacrifices, but that that one was once offered, and is no more to be
repeated. The more subtle try to make their escape by a still
narrower loophole, viz., that it is not repetition, but application.
But there is no more difficulty in confuting this sophism also. For
Christ did not offer himself once, in the view that his sacrifice
should be daily ratified by new oblations, but that by the preaching
of the gospel and the dispensation of the sacred Supper, the benefit
of it should be communicated to us. Thus Paul says, that "Christ, our
passover, is sacrificed for us," and bids us "keep the feast," (1
Cor. 5: 7, 8.) The method, I say, in which the cross of Christ is
duly applied to us is when the enjoyment is communicated to us, and
we receive it with true faith.

4. But it is worth while to
hear on what other foundation besides they rear up their sacrifice of
the mass. To this end they drag in the prophecy of Malachi, in which
the Lord promises that "in every place incense shall be offered unto
my name, and a pure offering," (Mal. 1: 11.) As if it were new or
unusual for the prophets, when they speak of the calling of the
Gentiles, to designate the spiritual worship of God to which they
call them, by the external rites of the law, more familiarly to
intimate to the men of their age that they were to be called into the
true fellowship of religion, just as in general they are wont to
describe the truth which has been exhibited by the gospel by the
types of their own age. Thus they use going up to Jerusalem for
conversion to the Lord, the bringing of all kinds of gifts for the
adoration of God - dreams and visions for the more ample knowledge
with which believers were to he endued in the kingdom of Christ. The
passage they quote from Malachi resembles one in Isaiah, in which the
prophet speaks of three altars to be erected in Assyria, Egypt, and
Judea. First, I ask, whether or not they grant that this prophecy is
fulfilled in the kingdom of Christ? Secondly, Where are those altars,
or when were they ever erected? Thirdly, Do they suppose that a
single temple is destined for a single kingdom, as was that of
Jerusalem? If they ponder these things, they will confess I think,
that the prophets under types adapted to his age, prophesied
concerning the propagation of the spiritual worship of God over the
whole world. This is the answer which we give them; but, as obvious
examples everywhere occur in the Scripture, I am not anxious to give
a longer enumeration; although they are miserably deluded in this
also, that they acknowledge no sacrifice but that of the mass,
whereas in truth believers now sacrifice to God and offer him a pure
offering, of which we shall speak by and by.

5. I now come to the third part
of the mass, in regard to which, we are to explain how it obliterates
the true and only death of Christ, and drives it from the memory of
men. For as among men, the confirmation of a testament depends upon
the death of the testator, so also the testament by which he has
bequeathed to us remission of sins and eternal righteousness, our
Lord has confirmed by his death. Those who dare to make any change or
innovation on this testament deny his death, and hold it as of no
moment. Now, what is the mass but a new and altogether different
testament? What? Does not each mass promise a new forgiveness of
sins, a new purchase of righteousness so that now there are as many
testaments as there are masses? Therefore, let Christ come again,
and, by another death, make this new testament; or rather, by
innumerable deaths, ratify the innumerable testaments of the mass.
Said I not true, then, at the outset, that the only true death of
Christ is obliterated by the mass? For what is the direct aim of the
mass but just to put Christ again to death, if that were possible?
For, as the apostle says, "Where a testament is, there must also of
necessity be the death of the testator," (Heb. 9: 16.) The novelty of
the mass bears, on the face of it, to be a testament of Christ, and
therefore demands his death. Besides, it is necessary that the victim
which is offered be slain and immolated. If Christ is sacrificed at
each mass, he must be cruelly slain every moment in a thousand
places. This is not my argument, but the apostle's: "Nor yet that he
should offer himself often;" "for then must he often have suffered
since the foundation of the world," (Heb. 9: 25, 26.) I admit that
they are ready with an answer, by which they even charge us with
calumny; for they say that we object to them what they never thought,
and could not even think. We know that the life and death of Christ
are not at all in their hand. Whether they mean to slay him, we
regard not: our intention is only to show the absurdity consequent on
their impious and accursed dogma. This I demonstrate from the mouth
of the apostle. Though they insist a hundred times that this
sacrifice is bloodless, ("anaimakton",) I will reply, that it depends
not on the will of man to change the nature of sacrifice, for in this
way the sacred and inviolable institution of God would fall. Hence it
follows, that the principle of the apostle stands firm, "without
shedding of blood is no remission," (Heb. 9: 22.)

6. The fourth property of the
mass which we are to consider is, that it robs us of the benefit
which redounded to us from the death of Christ, while it prevents us
from recognising it and thinking of it. For who can think that he has
been redeemed by the death of Christ when he sees a new redemption in
the mass? Who can feel confident that his sins have been remitted
when he sees a new remission? It will not do to say that the only
ground on which we obtain forgiveness of sins in the mass is, because
it has been already purchased by the death of Christ. For this is
just equivalent to saying that we are redeemed by Christ on the
condition that we redeem ourselves. For the doctrine which is
disseminated by the ministers of Satan, and which, in the present
day, they defend by clamour, fire, and sword, is, that when we offer
Christ to the Father in the mass, we, by this work of oblation,
obtain remission of sins, and become partakers of the sufferings of
Christ. What is now left for the sufferings of Christ, but to be an
example of redemption, that we may thereby learn to be our own
redeemers? Christ himself when he seals our assurance of pardon in
the Supper, does not bid his disciples stop short at that act, but
sends them to the sacrifice of his death; intimating, that the Supper
is the memento or, as it is commonly expressed, the memorial from
which they may learn that the expiatory victim by which God was to be
appeased was to be offered only once. For it is not sufficient to
hold that Christ is the only victim, without adding that his is the
only immolation, in order that our faith may be fixed to his
cross.

7. I come now to the crowning
point, viz., that the sacred Supper, on which the Lord left the
memorial of his passion formed and engraved, was taken away, hidden
and destroyed when the mass was erected.

While the Supper itself is a
gift of
God, which was to be
received with thanksgiving, the sacrifice of the mass pretends to
give a price to God to be received as satisfaction. As widely as
giving differs from receiving, does sacrifice differ from the
sacrament of the Supper. But herein does the wretched ingratitude of
man appear, - that wile a the liberality of the divine goodness ought
to have been recognised, and thanks returned, he makes God to be his
debtor. The sacrament promised that by the death of Christ we were
not only restored to life once but constantly quickened, because all
the parts of our salvation were then completed. The sacrifice of the
mass uses a very different language, viz., that Christ must be
sacrificed daily, in order that he may lend something to us. The
Supper was to be dispensed at the public meeting of the Church, to
remind us of the communion by which we are all united in Christ
Jesus. This communion the sacrifice of the mass dissolves, and tears
asunder. For after the heresy prevailed that there behaved to be
priests to sacrifice for the people, as if the Supper had been handed
over to them, it ceased to be communicated to the assembly of the
faithful according to the command of the Lord. Entrance has been
given to private masses, which more resemble a kind of
excommunication than that communion ordained by the Lord, when the
priestling, about to devour his victim apart, separates himself from
the whole body of the faithful. That there may be no mistake, I call
it a private mass whenever there is no partaking of the Lord's Supper
among believers, though, at the same time, a great multitude of
persons may be present.

8. The origin of the name of
Mass I have never been able certainly to ascertain. It seems probable
that it was derived from the offerings which were collected. Hence
the ancients usually speak of it in the plural number. But without
raising any controversy as to the name, I hold that private masses
are diametrically opposed to the institution at Christ, and are,
therefore, an impious profanation of the sacred Supper. For what did
the Lord enjoin? Was it not to take and divide amongst ourselves?
What does Paul teach as to the observance of this command? Is it not
that the breaking of bread is the communion of body and blood? (1
Cor. 10: 16.) Therefore, when one person takes without distributing,
where is the resemblance? But that one acts in the name of the whole
Church. By what command? Is it not openly to mock God when one
privately seizes for himself what ought to have been distributed
among a number? But as the words both of our Saviour and of Paul, are
sufficiently clear, we must briefly conclude, that wherever there is
no breaking of bread for the communion of the faithful, there is no
Supper of the Lord, but a false and preposterous imitation at the
Supper. But false imitation is adulteration. Moreover, the
adulteration of this high ordinance is not without impiety. In
private masses, therefore, there is an impious abuse: and as in
religion, one fault ever and anon begets another, after that custom
of offering without communion once crept in, they began gradually to
make innumerable masses in all the separate corners of the churches,
and to draw the people hither and thither, when they ought to have
formed one meeting, and thus recognised the mystery of their unity.
Let them now go and deny their idolatry when they exhibit the bread
in their masses, that it may be adored for Christ. In vain do they
talk of those promises of the presence of Christ, which, however they
may be understood, were certainly not given that impure and profane
men might form the body of Christ as often as they please, and for
whatever abuse they please; but that believers, while, with religious
observance, they follow the command of Christ in celebrating the
Supper, might enjoy the true participation of it.

9. We may add, that this
perverse course was unknown to the purer Church. For however the more
impudent among our opponents may attempt to gloss the matter, it is
absolutely certain that all antiquity is opposed to them, as has been
above demonstrated in other instances, and may be more surely known
by the diligent reading of the Fathers. But before I conclude, I ask
our missal doctors, seeing they know that obedience is better than
sacrifice, and God commands us to listen to his voice rather than to
offer sacrifice, (1 Sam. 15: 22,) - how they can believe this method
of sacrificing to be pleasing, to God, since it is certain that he
does not command it, and they cannot support it by one syllable of
Scripture? Besides, when they hear the apostle declaring that "no man
taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was
Aaron," so also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high
priest, but he that said unto him, "Thou art my Son: this day have I
begotten thee," (Heb. 5: 4, 5.) They must either prove God to be the
author and founder of their priesthood, or confess that there is no
honour from God in an office, into which, without being called, they
have rushed with wicked temerity. They cannot produce one iota of
Scripture in support of their priesthood. And must not the sacrifices
be vain, since they cannot be offered without a priest?

10. Should any one here obtrude
concise sentences of the ancients, and contend, on their authority,
that the sacrifice which is performed in the Supper is to be
understood differently from what we have explained it, let this be
our brief reply, - that if the question relates to the approval of
the fiction of sacrifice, as imagined by Papists in the mass, there
is nothing in the Fathers to countenance the sacrilege. They indeed
use the term sacrifice, but they, at the same time, explain that they
mean nothing more than the commemoration of that one true sacrifice
which Christ, our only sacrifice, (as they themselves everywhere
proclaim,) performed on the cross. "The Hebrews," says Augustine,
(Cont. Faust. Lib. 20 c, 18,) "in the victims of beasts which they
offered to God, celebrated the prediction of the future victim which
Christ offered: Christians now celebrate the commemoration of a
finished sacrifice by the sacred oblation and participation of the
body of Christ." Here he certainly teaches the same doctrine which is
delivered at greater length in the Treatise on Faith, addressed to
Peter the deacon, whoever may have been the author. The words are,
"Hold most firmly and have no doubt at all, that the Only Begotten
became incarnate for us, that he offered himself for us, an offering
and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour; to whom, with the
Father and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament, animals
were sacrificed, and to whom now, with the Father and the Holy
Spirit, (with whom there is one Godhead,) the holy Church, throughout
the whole world, ceases not to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine.
For, in those carnal victims, there was a typifying of the flesh of
Christ, which he himself was to offer for our sins, and of the blood
which he was to shed for the forgiveness of sins. But in that
sacrifice there is thanksgiving and commemoration of the flesh of
Christ which he offered for us, and of the blood which he shed for
us." Hence Augustine himself, in several passages, (Ep. 120, ad
Honorat. Cont. Advers. Legis.,) explains, that it is nothing else
than a sacrifice of praise. In short, you will find in his writings,
passim, that the only reason for which the Lord's Supper is called a
sacrifice is, because it is a commemoration, an image, a testimonial
of that singular, true, and only sacrifice by which Christ expiated
our guilt. For there is a memorable passage, (De Trinitate, Lib. 4 c.
24,) where, after discoursing of the only sacrifice, he thus
concludes: "Since, in a sacrifice, four things are considered, viz.,
to whom it is offered, by whom, what and for whom, the same one true
Mediator, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, remains
one with him to whom he offered, made himself one with those for whom
he offered, is himself the one who offered, and the one thing which
he offered." Chrysostom speaks to the same effect. They so strongly
claim the honour of the priesthood for Christ alone, that Augustine
declares it would be equivalent to Antichrist for any one to make a
bishop to be an intercessor between God and man, (August. Cont.
Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 8.)

11. And yet we deny not that in
the Supper the sacrifice of Christ is so vividly exhibited as almost
to set the spectacle of the cross before our eyes, just as the
apostle says to the Galatians, that Jesus Christ had been evidently
set forth before their eyes, when the preaching of the crossway
delivered to them, (Gal. 3: 1.) But because I see that those ancient
writers have wrested this commemoration to a different purpose than
was accordant to the divine institution, (the Supper somehow seemed
to them to present the appearance of a repeated or at least renewed,
immolation,) nothing can be safer for the pious than to rest
satisfied with the pure and simple ordinance of God, whose Supper it
is said to be just because his authority alone ought to appear in it.
Seeing that they retained a pious and orthodoxy view of the whole
ordinance, and I cannot discover that they wished to derogate in the
least from the one sacrifice of the Lord, I cannot charge them with
any impiety, and yet I think they cannot be excused from having erred
somewhat in the mode of action. They imitated the Jewish mode of
sacrificing more closely than either Christ had ordained, or the
nature of the gospel allowed. The only thing, therefore for which
they may be justly censured is, that preposterous analogy, that, not
contented with the simple and genuine institution of Christ, they
declined too much to the shadows of the law.

12. Any who will diligently
consider, will perceive that the word of the Lord makes this
distinction between the Mosaic sacrifices and our eucharist - that
while the former represented to the Jewish people the same efficacy
of the death of Christ which is now exhibited to us, in the Supper,
yet the form of representation was different. There the Levitical
priests were ordered to typify the sacrifice which Christ was to
accomplish; a victim was placed to act as a substitute for Christ
himself; an altar was erected on which it was to be sacrificed; the
whole, in short, was so conducted as to bring under the eye an image
of the sacrifice which was to be offered to God in expiation. But now
that the sacrifice has been performed, the Lord has prescribed a
different method to us, viz., to transmit the benefit of the
sacrifice offered to him by his Son to his believing people, The
Lord, therefore, has given us a table at which we may feast, not an
altar on which a victim may be offered; he has not consecrated
priests to sacrifice, but ministers to distribute a sacred feast. The
more sublime and holy this mystery is the more religiously and
reverently ought it to be treated. Nothing, therefore, is, safer than
to banish all the boldness of human sense, and adhere solely to what
Scripture delivers. And certainly, if we reflect that it is the
Supper of the Lord and not of men, why do we allow ourselves to be
turned aside one nail's-breadth from Scripture by any authority of
man, or length of prescription? Accordingly, the apostle, in desiring
completely to remove the vices which had crept into the Church of
Corinth, as the most expeditious method recalls them to the
institution itself, showing that thence a perpetual rule ought to be
derived.

13. Lest any quarrelsome person
should raise a dispute with us as to the terms, "sacrifice" and
"priest", I will briefly explain what in the whole of this discussion
we mean by sacrifice, and what by priest. Some, on what rational
ground I see not, extend the term sacrifice to all sacred ceremonies
and religious acts. We know that by the uniform use of Scripture, the
name of sacrifice is given to what the Greeks call at one time
"thusia", at another "prosfora", at another "telete". This, in its general acceptation, includes
everything whatever that is offered to God.

Wherefore, we ought to
distinguish, but so that the distinction may derive its analogy from
the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, under whose shadows the Lord was
pleased to represent to his people the whole reality of sacrifices.
Though these were various in form, they may all be referred to two
classes. For either an oblation for sin was made by a certain species
of satisfaction, by which the penalty was redeemed before God, or it
was a symbol and attestation of religion and divine worship, at one
time in the way of supplication to demand the favour of God; at
another, by way of thanksgiving, to testify gratitude to God for
benefits received; at another as a simple exercise of piety to renew
the sanction of the covenant, to which latter branch,
burnt-offerings, and libations, oblations, first fruits, and
peace-offerings, referred. Hence, let us also distribute them into
two classes. The other class, with the view of explaining, let us
call "latreutikon", and "sebastikon", as consisting of the veneration
and worship which believers both owe and render to God; or, if you
prefer it, let us call it "eucharistikon", since it is exhibited to
God by none but those who, enriched with his boundless benefits,
offer themselves and all their actions to him in return. The other
class let us call propitiatory or expiatory. A sacrifice of expiation
is one whose object is to appease the wrath of God, to satisfy his
justice, and thereby wipe and wash away the sins, by which the sinner
being cleansed and restored to purity, may return to favour with God.
Hence the name which was given in the Law to the victims which were
offered in expiation of sin, (Exod. 29: 36;) not that they were
adequate to regain the favour of God, and wipe away guilt, but
because they typified the true sacrifice of this nature, which was at
length performed in reality by Christ alone; by him alone, because no
other could, and once, because the efficacy and power of the one
sacrifice performed by Christ is eternal, as he declared by his
voice, when he said, "It is finished;" that is, that everything
necessary to regain the favour of the Father, to procure forgiveness
of sins, righteousness and salvation, that all this was performed and
consummated by his one oblation, and that hence nothing was wanting.
No place was left for another sacrifice.

14. Wherefore, I conclude, that
it is an abominable insult and intolerable blasphemy, as well against
Christ as the sacrifice, which, by his death, he performed for us on
the cross,

for any one to
think of repeating the
oblation, of purchasing
the forgiveness of sins, of propitiatingGod,
and obtaining justification.

But what else is done in the
Mass than to make us partakers of the sufferings of Christ by means of a new oblation? And that there might be
no limit to their extravagance, they have deemed it little to say,
that it properly becomes a common sacrifice for the whole Church,
without adding, that it is at their pleasure to apply it specially to
this one or that, as they choose; or rather, to any one who is
willing to purchase
their merchandise from
them for a price paid. Moreover, as they could not come up to the
estimate of Judas, still, that they might in some way refer to their
author, they make the resemblance to consist in the member. He sold
for thirty pieces of silver: they, according to the French method of
computation, sell for thirty pieces of brass. He did it once: they as
often as a purchaser is met with. We deny that they are priests in
this sense, namely, that by such oblations they intercede with God
for the people, that by propitiating God they make expiation for
sins. Christ is the only Pontiff and Priest of the New Testament: to
him all priestly offices were transferred, and in him they closed and
terminated. Even had Scripture made no mention of the eternal
priesthood of Christ, yet, as God, after abolishing those ancient
sacrifices, appointed no new priest, the argument of the apostle
remains invincible, "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he
that is called of God, as was Aaron," (Heb. 5: 4.) How, then, can
those sacrilegious men, who by their own account are murderers of
Christ, dare to call themselves the priests of the living God?

15. There is a most elegant
passage in the second book of Plato's Republic. Speaking of ancient
expiations, and deriding the foolish confidence of wicked and
iniquitous men, who thought that by them, as a kind of veils, they
concealed their crimes from the gods; and, as if they had made a
paction with the gods, indulged themselves more securely, he seems
accurately to describe the use of the expiation of the mass, as it
exists in the world in the present day. All know that it is unlawful
to defraud and circumvent another. To do injustice to widows, to
pillage pupils, to molest the poor, to seize the goods of others by
wicked arts, to get possession of any mans succession by fraud and
perjury, to oppress by violence and tyrannical terror, all admit to
be impious. How then do so many, as if assured of impunity, dare to
do all those things? Undoubtedly, if we duly consider, we will find
that the only thing which gives them so much courage is, that by the
sacrifice of the mass as a price paid, they trust that they will
satisfy God, or at least will easily find a means of transacting with
him. Plato next proceeds to deride the gross stupidity of those who
think by such expiations to redeem the punishments which they must
otherwise suffer after death. And what is meant by anniversaries and
the greater part of masses in the present day, but just that those
who through life have been the most cruel tyrants, or most rapacious
plunderers or adepts in all kinds of wickedness, may, as if redeemed
at this price, escape the fire of purgatory?

16. Under the other kind of
sacrifice, which we have called eucharistic, are included all the
offices of charity, by which, while we embrace our brethren, we
honour the Lord himself in his members; in fine, all our prayers,
praises, thanksgivings, and every act of worship which we perform to
God. All these depend on the greater sacrifice with which we dedicate
ourselves, soul and body, to be a holy temple to the Lord. For it is
not enough that our external acts be framed to obedience, but we must
dedicate and consecrate first ourselves, and, secondly, all that we
have, so that all which is in us may be subservient to his glory, and
be stirred up to magnify it. This kind of sacrifice has nothing to do
with appeasing God, with obtaining remission of sins, with procuring
justification, but is wholly employed in magnifying and extolling
God, since it cannot be grateful and acceptable to God unless at the
hand of those who, having received forgiveness of sins, have already
been reconciled and freed from guilt. This is so necessary to the
Church, that it cannot be dispensed with. Therefore, it will endure
for ever, so long as the people of God shall endure, as we have
already seen above from the prophet. For in this sense we may
understand the prophecy, "From the rising of the sun, even unto the
going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles;
and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure
offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the
Lord of hosts," (Malachi 1: 11;) so far are we from doing away with
this sacrifice. Thus Paul beseeches us, by the mercies of God, to
present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God,"
our "reasonable service," (Rom. 12: 1.) Here he speaks very
significantly when he adds, that this service is reasonable, for he
refers to the spiritual mode of worshipping God, and tacitly opposes
it to the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. Thus to do good and
communicate are called sacrifices with which God is well-pleased,
(Heb. 13: 16.) Thus the kindness of the Philippians in relieving
Paul's want is called "an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice
acceptable, well-pleasing to God," (Phil. 4: 18;) and thus all the
good works of believers are called spiritual sacrifices.

17. And why do I enumerate?
This form of expression is constantly occurring in Scripture. Nay,
even while the people of God were kept under the external tutelage of
the law, the prophets clearly expressed that under these carnal
sacrifices there was a reality which is common both to the Jewish
people and the Christian Church. For this reason David prayed, "Let
my prayer ascend forth before thee as incense," (Psalm 141: 2.) And
Hosea gives the name of "calves of the lips" (Hos. 14: 3) to
thanksgivings, which David elsewhere calls "sacrifices of praise;"
the apostle imitating him, speaks of offering "the sacrifice of
praise," which he explains to mean, "the fruit of our lips, giving
thanks to his name," (Heb. 13: 15.) This kind of sacrifice is
indispensable in the Lord's Supper, in which, while we show forth his
death, and give him thanks, we offer nothing but the sacrifice of
praise. From this office of sacrificing, all Christians are called "a
royal priesthood," because by Christ we offer that sacrifice of
praise of which the apostle speaks, the fruit of our lips, giving
thanks to his name, (1 Peter 2: 9; Heb. 13: 15.) We do not appear
with our gifts in the presence of God without an intercessor. Christ,
our Mediator, by whose intervention we offer ourselves and our all to
the Father; he is our High Priest, who, having entered into the upper
sanctuary, opens up an access for us; he the altar on which we lay
our gifts, that whatever we do attempts we may attempt in him; he it
is, I say, who "has made us kings and priests unto God and his
Father," (Rev. 1: 6.)

18. What remains but for the
blind to see, the deaf to hear, children even to perceive this
abomination of the
mass, which, held forth
in a golden cup, has so intoxicated all the kings and nations of the
earth, from the highest to the lowest;

so struck them with
stupor and
giddiness, that, duller
than the lower animals, they have placed the vessel of their
salvation in this fatal
vortex.

Certainly Satan never employed a more powerful engine to assail and storm
the kingdom of Christ. This is the Helen for whom the enemies of the
truth in the present day fight with so much rage, fury, and atrocity;
and truly the Helen with whom they commit spiritual whoredom, the
most execrable of all. I am not here laying my little finger on those
gross abuses by which they might pretend that the purity of their
sacred mass is profaned; on the base traffic which they ply; the
sordid gain which they make; the rapacity with which they satiate
their avarice. I only indicate, and that in few and simple terms, how
very sacred the sanctity of the mass is, how well it has for several
ages deserved to be admired and held in veneration! It were a greater
work to illustrate these great mysteries as they deserve, and I am
unwilling to meddle with their obscene impurities, which are daily
before the eyes and faces of all, that it may be understood that the
mass, taken in the most choice form in which it can be exhibited,
without any appendages, teems from head to foot with all kinds of
impiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.

19. My readers have here a
compendious view of all that I have thought it of importance to know
concerning these two sacraments which have been delivered to the
Christian Church, to be used from the beginning of the new
dispensation to the end of the world,

Baptism being a
kind of entrance into
the Church, an
initiation into the
faith,

Then they that
gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles
doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:42

and the Lord's Supper the
constant ailment by which Christ spiritually feeds his family of
believers. Wherefore, as there is but one God, one faith, one Christ,
one Church, which is his body, so Baptism is one, and is not
repeated.

But the Supper is ever and anon
dispensed, to intimate, that those who are once allured into the
Church are constantly fed by Christ. Besides these two, no other has
been instituted by God, and no other ought to be recognised by the
assembly of the faithful. That sacraments are not to be instituted
and set up by the will of men, is easily understood by him who
remembers what has been above with sufficient plainness expounded,
viz., that the sacraments have been appointed by God to instruct us
in his promise, and testify his good-will towards us; and who,
moreover, considers, that the Lord has no counsellor, (Isa. 40: 13;
Rom. 11: 34;) who can give us any certainty as to his will, or assure
us how he is disposed towards us, what he is disposed to give, and
what to deny? From this it follows, that no one can set forth a sign
which is to be a testimonial of his will, and of some promise. He
alone can give the sign, and bear witness to himself. I will express
it more briefly perhaps in homelier, but also in clearer terms, -
There never can be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. All
men collected into one cannot, of themselves give us any promise of
salvation. And, therefore, they cannot, of themselves, give out and
set up a sacrament.

20. With these two, therefore,
let the Christian Church be contented, and not only not admit or
acknowledge any third at present, but not even desire or expect it
even until the end of the world. For though to the Jews were given,
besides his ordinary sacraments, others differing somewhat according
to the nature of the times, (as the manna, the water gushing from the
rock, the brazen serpent, and the like,) by this variety they were
reminded not to stop short at such figures, the state of which could
not be durable, but to expect from God something better, to endure
without decay and without end. Our case is very different. To us
Christ has been revealed. In him are hidden all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge, (Col. 2: 3,) in such richness and abundance,
that to ask or hope for any new addition to these treasures is truly
to offend God and provoke him against us. It behaves us to hunger
after Christ only, to seek him, look to him, learn of him, and learn
again, until the arrival of the great day on which the Lord will
fully manifest the glory of his kingdom, and exhibit himself as he is
to our admiring eyes (1 John 3: 2.) And, for this reason, this age of
ours is designated in Scriptures by the last hour, the last days, the
last times, that no one may deceive himself with the vain expectation
of some new doctrine or revelations. Our heavenly Father, who "at
sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us" by
his beloved Son, who alone can manifest, and, in fact, has fully
manifested, the Father, in so far as is of importance to us, while we
now see him through a mirror. Now since men have been denied the
power of making new sacraments in the Church of God, it were to be
wished that in those which are of God, there should be the least
possible admixture of human invention. For just as when water is
infused the wine is diluted and when leaven is put in, the whole mass
is leavened, so the purity of the ordinances of God is impaired,
whenever man makes any addition of his own. And yet we see how far
the sacraments as at present used have degenerated from their genuine
purity. There is everywhere more than enough of pomp, ceremony and
gesticulation, while no account is taken or mention made, of the word
of God, without which, even the sacraments themselves are not
sacraments. Nay, in such a crowd, the very ceremonies ordained by God
cannot raise their head, but lie as it were oppressed. In Baptism, as
we have elsewhere justly complained, how little is seen of that which
alone ought to shine and be conspicuous there, I mean Baptism itself?
The Supper was altogether buried when it was turned into the Mass.
The utmost is that it is seen once a year, but in a garbled,
mutilated, and lacerated form.

Chapter 19.

Of the five sacraments, falsely
so called. Their spuriousness proved, and their true character
explained.

There are two divisions of this
chapter, - I. A general discussion of these five sacraments, sec.
1-3. II. A special consideration of each. 1. Of Confirmation, sec.
4-13. 2. Of Penance, sec. 14-17. 3. Of Extreme Unction, sec. 18-21.
4. Of Order, in which the seven so-called sacraments have originated,
sec. 22-33. 5. Of Marriage, sec. 34-37.

Sections.

1. Connection of the present
discussion with that concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Impiety of the Popish teachers in attributing, more to human rites
than to the ordinances of God.

2. Men cannot institute
sacraments. Necessary to keep up a distinction between sacraments and
other ceremonies.

3. Seven sacraments not to be
found in ecclesiastical writers. Augustine, who may represent all the
others, acknowledged two Sacraments only.

4. Nature of confirmation in
ancient times. The laying on of hands.

5. This kind of confirmation
afterwards introduced. It is falsely called a sacrament.

6. Popish argument for
confirmation answered.

7. Argument confirmed by the
example of Christ. Absurdity and impiety of Papists in calling their
oil the oil of salvation.

8. Papistical argument, that
Baptism cannot be complete without conformation. Answered. .
Argument, that without confirmation we cannot be fully Christians.
Answer.

10. Argument, that the Unction
in confirmation is more excellent than Baptism. Answer.

11. Answer continued. Argument,
that confirmation has greater virtue.

12. Argument from the practice
of antiquity. Augustine's view of conformation.

13. The ancient confirmation
very praiseworthy. Should be restored in churches in the present
day.

14. Of Penitence. Confused and
absurd language of the Popish doctors. Impositions of hands in
ancient times. This made by the Papists a kind of foundation of the
sacrament of Penance.

15. Disagreement among Papists
themselves, as to the grounds on which penance is regarded as a
sacrament.

16. More plausibility in
calling the absolution of the priest, than in calling penance a
sacrament.

17. Penance not truly a
sacrament. Baptism the sacrament of penitence.

18. Extreme Unction described.
No foundation for it in the words of James.

19. No better ground for making
this unction a sacrament, than any of the other symbols mentioned in
Scripture.

20. Insult offered by this
unction to the Holy Spirit. It cannot be a sacrament, as it was not
instituted by Christ, and has no promise annexed to it.

21. No correspondence between
the unction enjoined by James and the anointing of the
Papists.

22. Of ecclesiastical orders.
Two points for discussion. Absurdities here introduced. Whether
ecclesiastical order is a sacrament. Papists not agreed as to holy
orders.

23. Insult to Christ in
attempting to make him their colleague.

24. The greater part of these
orders empty names implying no certain office. Popish exorcists.

25. Absurdity of the
tonsure.

26. The Judaizing nature of the
tonsure. Why Paul shaved his head in consequence of a vow.

27. Origin of this clerical
tonsure as given by Augustine. Absurd ceremonies in consecrating
Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, and Acolytes.

28. Of the higher class of
orders called Holy Orders. Insult offered to Christ when ministers
are regarded as priests. Holy orders have nothing of the nature of a
sacrament.

29. Absurd imitation of our
Saviour in breathing on his apostles.

30. Absurdity of the anointing
employed.

31. Imposition of hands.
Absurdity of, in Papistical ordination.

32. Ordination of deacons.
Absurd forms of Papists.

33. Of sub-deacons.

34. Marriage not a sacrament.
sin Nothing in Scripture to countenance the idea that marriage is a
sacrament.

36. Origin of the notion that
marriage is a sacrament.

37. Practical abuses from this
erroneous idea of marriage. Conclusion.

1. The above discourse
concerning the sacraments might have the effect, among the docile and
sober-minded of preventing them from indulging their curiosity or
from embracing without authority from the word, any other sacraments
than those two which they know to have been instituted by the Lord.
But since the idea of seven sacraments almost common in the mouths of
all, and circulated in all schools and sermons, by mere antiquity,
has struck its roots, and is even now seated in the minds of men, I
thought it might be worth while to give a separate and closer
consideration of the other five, which are vulgarly classed with the
true and genuine sacraments of the Lord, and, after wiping away every
gloss, to hold them up to the view of the simple, that they may see
what their true nature is, and how falsely they have hitherto been
regarded as sacraments. Here, at the outset, I would declare to all
the pious, that I engage not in this dispute about a word from a love
of wrangling, but am induced, by weighty causes, to impugn the abuse
of it. I am not unaware that Christians are the masters of words, as
they are of all things, and that, therefore, they may at pleasure
adapt words to things, provided a pious meaning is retained, though
there should be some impropriety in the mode of expression. All this
I concede, though it were better to make words subordinate to things
than things to words. But in the name of sacrament, the case is
different. For those who set down seven sacraments, at the same time
give this definition to all, viz., that they are visible forms of
invisible grace; and at the same time, make them all vehicles of the holy
Spirit, instruments for
conferring righteousness, causes of procuring grace.

Accordingly, the
Master of
Sentences himself
denies that the sacraments of the Mosaic Law are properly called by
this name,

because they
exhibited not what they figured.

Is it tolerable, I ask, that
the symbols which the Lord has consecrated with his own lips, which
he has distinguished by excellent promises, should be regarded as no
sacraments and that, meanwhile, this honour should be transferred to
those rites which men have either devised of themselves, or at least
observe without any express command from God? Therefore, let them
either change the definition, or refrain from this use of the word,
which may afterwards give rise to false and absurd opinions. Extreme
unction, they say, is a figure and cause of invisible grace, because
it is a sacrament. If we cannot possibly admit the inference, we must
certainly meet them on the subject of the name, that we may not
receive it on terms which may furnish occasion for such an error. On
the other hand, when they prove it to be a sacrament, they add the
reason, because it consists of the external sign and the word. If we
find neither command nor promise, what else can we do than protest
against it?

2. It now appears that we are
not quarrelling about a word, but raising a not unnecessary
discussion as to the reality. Accordingly, we most strenuously
maintain what we formerly confirmed by invincible argument, that the
power of instituting a sacrament belongs to God alone, since a
sacrament ought by the sure promise of God, to raise up and comfort
the consciences of believers, which could never receive this
assurance from men. A sacrament ought to be a testimony of the
good-will of God toward us. Of this no man or angel can be witness,
since God has no counsellor, (Isa. 40: 13; Rom. 11: 34.) He himself
alone, with legitimate authority, testifies of himself to us by his
word. A sacrament is a seal of the attestation or promise of God.
None, it could not be sealed by corporeal things or the elements of
this world, unless they were confirmed and set apart for this purpose
by the will of God. Man, therefore, cannot institute a sacrament,
because it is not in the power of man to make such divine mysteries
lurk under things so abject. The word of God must precede to make a
sacrament to be a sacrament, as Augustine most admirably shows, (Hom.
in Joann. 80.) Moreover, it is useful to keep up some distinction
between sacraments and other ceremonies, if we would not fall into
many absurdities. The apostles prayed on their bended knees;
therefore our knees may not be bent without a sacrament, (Acts 9: 20;
20: 36.) The disciples are said to have prayed toward the east; thus
looking at the east is a sacrament. Paul would have men in every
place to lift up pure hands, (1 Tim. 2: 8;) and it is repeatedly
stated that the saints prayed with uplifted hands, let the out
stretching, therefore, of hands also become a sacrament; in short,
let all the gestures of saints pass into sacraments, though I should
not greatly object to this, provided it was not connected with those
greater inconveniences.

3. If they would press us with
the authority of the ancient Church, I say that they are using a
gloss. This number seven is nowhere found in ecclesiastical writers,
nor is it well ascertained at what time it crept in. I confess,
indeed, that they sometimes use freedom with the term sacraments but
what do they mean by it? All ceremonies, external rites, and
exercises of piety. But when they speak of those signs which ought to
be testimonies of the divine favour toward us, they are contented
with those two, Baptism and the Eucharist. Lest any one suppose that
this is falsely alleged by me, I will here give a few passages from
Augustine. "First, I wish you to hold that the principal point in
this discussion is that our Lord Jesus Christ (as he himself says in
the gospel) has placed us under a yoke which is easy, and a burden
which is light. Hence he has knit together the society of his new
people by sacraments, very few in number, most easy of observance,
and most excellent in meaning; such is baptisms consecrated by the
name of the Trinity; such is the communion of the body and blood of
the Lord, and any other, if recommended in the canonical Scriptures,"
(August. ad Januar. Ep. 118.) Again, "After the resurrection of our
Lord, our Lord himself, and apostolic discipline, appointed, instead
of many, a few signs, and these most easy of performance, most august
in meaning, most chaste in practice; such is baptism and the
celebration of the body and blood of the Lord," (August. De Doct.
Christ. Lib. 3 cap. 9.) Why does he here make no mention of the
sacred number, I mean seven? Is it probable that he would have
omitted it if it had then been established in the Church, especially
seeing he is otherwise more curious in observing numbers than might
be necessary? Nay, when he makes mention of Baptism and the Supper,
and is silent as to others, does he not sufficiently intimate that
these two ordinances excel in special dignity, and that other
ceremonies sink down to an inferior place? Wherefore, I say, that
those sacramentary doctors are not only unsupported by the word of
God, but also by the consent of the early Church, however much they
may plume themselves on the pretence that they have this consent. But
let us now come to particulars.

Of Confirmation.

4. It was anciently customary
for the children of Christians, after they have grown up, to appear
before the bishop to fulfil that duty which was required of such
adults as presented themselves for baptism. These sat among the
catechumens until they were duly instructed in the mysteries of the
faith, and could make a confession of it before bishop and people.
The infants, therefore, who had been initiated by baptism, not having
then given a confession of faith to the Church, were again, toward
the end of their boyhood, or on adolescence, brought forward by their
parents, and were examined by the bishop in terms of the Catechism
which was then in common use. In order that this act, which otherwise
justly required to be grave and holy, might have more reverence and
dignity, the ceremony of laying on of hands was also used. Thus the
boy, on his faith being approved, was dismissed with a solemn
blessing. Ancient writers often made mention of this custom. Pope Leo
says, (Ep 39,) "If any one returns from heretics, let him not be
baptised again, but let that which was there wanting to him, viz.,
the virtue of the Spirit, be conferred by the laying on of the hands
of the bishop." Our opponents will here exclaim, that the name of
sacrament is justly given to that by which the Holy Spirit is
conferred.

But Leo elsewhere explains what
he means by these words, (Ep 77 j) "Let not him who was baptised by
heretics be rebaptised, but be confirmed by the laying on of hands
with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, because he received only the
form of baptism without sanctification." Jerome also mentions it,
(Contra Luciferan) Now, though I deny not that Jerome is somewhat
under delusion when he says that the observance is apostolical, he
is, however, very far from the follies of these men. And he softens
the expression when he adds, that this benediction is given to
bishops only, more in honour of the priesthood than from any
necessity of law. This laying on of hands, which is done simply by
way of benediction, I commend, and would like to see restored to its
pure use in the present day.

5. A later age having almost
obliterated the reality, introduced a kind of fictitious confirmation
as a divine sacrament. They feigned that the virtue of confirmation
consisted in conferring the Holy Spirit, for increase of grace, on
him who had been prepared in baptism for righteousness, and in
confirming for contest those who in baptism were regenerated to life.
This confirmation is performed by unction, and the following form of
words: - "I sign thee with the sign of the holy cross, and confirm
thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

All fair and venerable. But
where is the word of God which promises the presence of the Holy
Spirit here? Not one iota can they allege. How will they assure us
thus their chrism is a vehicle of the Holy Spirit?

We see oil, that is, a thick
and greasy liquid, but nothing more. "Let the word be added to the
element," says Augustine, "and it will become a sacrament." Let them,
I say, produce this word if they would have us to see any thing more
in the oil than oil. But if they would show themselves to be
ministers of the sacraments as they ought, there would be no room for
further dispute. The first duty of a minister is not to do anything
without a command. Come, then, and let them produce some command for
this ministry, and I will not add a word. If they have no command,
they cannot excuse their sacrilegious audacity. For this reason cur
Saviour interrogated the Pharisees as to the baptism of John, "Was it
from heavens or of men?" (Matth. 21: 25.) If they had answered, Of
men, he held them confessed that it was frivolous and vain; if of
heaven, they were forced to acknowledge the doctrine of John.
Accordingly, not to be too contumelious to John, they did not venture
to say that it was of men. Therefore, if confirmation is of men, it
is proved to be frivolous and vain; if they would persuade us that it
is of heaven, let them prove it.

6. They indeed defend
themselves by the example of the apostles, who, they presume, did
nothing rashly. In this they are right, nor would they be blamed by
us if they showed themselves to be imitators of the apostles. But
what did the apostles do? Luke narrates, (Acts 8: 15, 17,) that the
apostles who were at Jerusalem, when they heard that Samaria had
received the word of God, sent thither Peter and John, that Peter and
John prayed for the Samaritans, that they might receive the Holy
Spirit, who had not yet come upon any of them, they having only been
baptised in the name of Jesus; that after prayer they laid their
hands upon them, and that by this laying on of hands the Samaritans
received the Holy Spirit.

Luke repeatedly mentions this
laying on of hands. I hear what the apostles did, that is, they
faithfully executed their ministry. It pleased the Lord that those
visible and admirable gifts of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured
out upon his people, should be administered and distributed by his
apostles by the laying on of hands. I think that there was no deeper
mystery under this laying on of hands, but I interpret that this kind
of ceremony was used by them to intimate, by the outward acts that
they commended to God, and, as it were, offered him on whom they laid
hands. Did this ministry which the apostles then performed, still
remain in the Church, it would also behave us to observe the laying
on of hands; but since that gift has ceased to be conferred, to what
end is the laying on of hands?

Assuredly the Holy Spirit is
still present with the people of God; without his guidance and
direction the Church of God cannot subsist. For we have a promise of
perpetual duration, by which Christ invites the thirsty to come to
him, that they may drink living water, (John 7: 37.)

But those miraculous powers and
manifest operations, which were distributed by the laying on of
hands, have
ceased. They were only for a
time.

For it was right
that the new preaching
of the gospel, the new
kingdom of Christ, should be signalised and magnified by unwonted and
unheard-of
miracles.

When the Lord ceased from
these, he did not forthwith abandon his Church but intimated that the
magnificence of his kingdom, and the dignity of his word, had been sufficiently manifested.

In what respect then
can these stage-players
say that they imitate the apostles? The object of the laying on of hands was, that the
evident
power of the Holy
Spirit might be immediately exerted. This they effect not.

Why then do they
claim to themselves the laying on of hands, which is indeed said to
have been used by the apostles, but altogether to a different
end?

7. The same account is to be
given were any one to insist that the breathing of our Lord upon his disciples (John 20: 22) is a
sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred.

But the Lord did this
once for
all, and did not also
wish us to do it.

In the same way, also, the
apostles laid their hands, agreeably to that time at which it pleased
the Lord that the visible gifts of the Spirit should be
dispensed in answer to
their prayers;

not
that posterity might, as those apes do, mimic the empty and useless
sign without the
reality.

But if they prove that they
imitate the apostles in the laying on of hands, (though in this they
have no resemblance to the apostles, except it be in manifesting some
absurd false zeal,) where did they get their oil which they call the
oil of salvation? Who taught them to seek salvation in oil? Who
taught them to attribute to it the power of strengthening? Was it
Paul, who draws us far away from the elements of this world, and
condemns nothing more than clinging to such observances? This I
boldly declare, not of myself but from the Lord: Those who call oil
the oil of salvation abjure the salvation which is in Christ, deny
Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God. Oil for the belly,
and the belly for oil, but the Lord will destroy both. For all these
weak elements, which perish even in the using, have nothing to do
with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and will never perish.
What, then, some one will say, do you apply the same rule to the
water by which we are baptised, and the bread and wine under which
the Lord's Supper is exhibited? I answer, that in the sacraments of
divine appointment, two things are to be considered: the substance of
the corporeal thing which is set before us, and the form which has
been impressed upon it
by the word of God, and
in which its whole force lies. In as far, then, as the bread, wine,
and water, which are presented to our view in the sacraments, retain
their substance, Paul's declaration applies, "meats for the belly,
and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them," (1
Cor. 6: 13.) For they pass and vanish away with the fashion at this
world. But in as far as they are sanctified by the word of God to be sacraments, they do not confine
us to the flesh, but teach truly and spiritually.

8. But let us make a still
closer inspection, and see how many monsters this greasy oil fosters
and nourishes. Those anointers say that the Holy Spirit is given in
baptism for righteousness, and in confirmation, for increase of
grace, that in baptism we are regenerated for life, and in
confirmation, equipped for contest. And, accordingly, they are not
ashamed to deny that baptism can be duly completed without
confirmation. How nefarious! Are we not, then, buried with Christ by
baptism, and made partakers of his death, that we may also be
partners of his resurrection? This fellowship with the life and death
of Christ, Paul interprets to mean the mortification of our flesh,
and the quickening of the Spirit, our old man being crucified in
order that we may walk in newness of life, (Rom. 6: 6.) What is it to
be equipped for contest, if this is not?

But if they deemed it as
nothing to trample
on the word of
God, why did they not at least reverence the Church, to which they
would be thought to be in everything so obedient? What heavier charge
can be brought against their doctrine than the decree of the Council
of Melita? "Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission
of sins only, and not in aid of future grace, be anathema." When
Luke, in the passage which we have quoted, says, that the Samaritans
were only "baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus," (Acts 8: 16,)
but had not received the
Holy Spirit,

he does not say
absolutely that those who believed in Christ with the heart, and
confessed him with the mouth, were not endued with any gift of the
Spirit.

He means that receiving of the
Spirit by which miraculous power and visible graces were received.

Thus the apostles are said to
have received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2: 4,)
whereas Christ had long before said to them, "It is not ye that
speak, but the Spirit of
your Father which speaketh in you," (Matth. 10: 20.)

Ye who are of God see the
malignant and pestiferous wile of Satan. What was truly given in
baptism, is falsely said to be given in the confirmation of it, that
he may stealthily lead away the unwary from baptism. Who can now
doubt that this doctrine, which dissevers the proper promises of
baptism from baptism, and transfers them elsewhere, is a doctrine of
Satan? We have discovered on what foundation this famous unction
rests.

The word of God says, that as many as have been
baptised into
Christ, have put on
Christ with his gifts, (Gal. 3: 27.)

The word of the anointers says that they received no promise in baptism to
equip them for contest, (De Consecr. Dist. 5, cap. Spit. Sanct.)

The former is the
wordof truth, the latter must be the word of falsehood. I can define this baptism more truly than they
themselves have hitherto defined it, viz., that it is a noted insult
to baptism, the use of which it obscures, nay abolishes: that it is a
false suggestion of the devil, which draws us away from the truth of
God; or, if you prefer it, that it is oil polluted with a lie of the
devil, deceiving the minds of the simple by shrouding them, as it
were, in darkness.

9. They adds moreover, that all
believers ought, after baptism, to receive the holy Spirit by the
laying on of hands, that they may become complete Christians,
inasmuch as there never can be a Christians who has not been chrismed
by episcopal confirmation. These are their exact words. I thought
that everything pertaining to Christianity was prescribed and
contained in Scripture. Now I see that the true form of religion must
be sought and learned elsewhere than in Scripture. Divine wisdom,
heavenly truth, the whole doctrine of Christ, only begins the
Christian; it is the oil that perfects him. By this sentence are
condemned all the apostles and the many martyrs who, it is absolutely
certain, were never chrismed, the oil not yet being made, besmeared
with which, they might fulfil all the parts of Christianity, or
rather become Christians, which, as yet, they were not. Though I were
silent, they abundantly refute themselves. How small the proportion
of the people whom they anoint after baptism? Why, then, do they
allow among their flock so many half Christians, whose imperfection
they might easily remedy? Why, with such supine negligence, do they
allow them to omit what cannot be omitted without grave offence? Why
do they not more rigidly insist on a matter so necessary, that,
without it, salvation cannot be obtained unless, perhaps, when the
act has been anticipated by sudden death? When they allow it to be
thus licentiously despised they tacitly confess that it is not of the
importance which they pretend.

10. Lastly, they conclude that
this sacred unction is to be held in greater veneration than baptism,
because the former is specially administered by the higher order of
priests, whereas the latter is dispensed in common by all priests
whatever, (Distinct. 5, De his vero.) What can you here say, but that
they are plainly mad in thus pluming themselves on their own
inventions, while, in comparison with these, they carelessly condemn
the sacred ordinances of God? Sacrilegious mouth! dare you oppose oil
merely polluted with your fetid breath, and charmed by your muttered
words, to the sacrament of Christ, and compare it with water
sanctified by the word of God? But even this was not enough for your
improbity: you must also prefer it. Such are the responses of the
holy see, such the oracles of the apostolic tripod. But some of them
have begun to moderate this madness, which, even in their own
opinion, was carried too far, (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 7, c. 2.)
It is to be held in greater veneration, they say, not, perhaps,
because of the greater virtue and utility which it confers, but
because it is given by more dignified persons, and in a more
dignified part of the body, the forehead; or because it gives a
greater increase of virtue, though baptism is more effectual for
forgiveness. But do they not, by their first reason, prove themselves
to be Donatists, who estimate the value of the sacrament by the
dignity of the minister? Grant, however, that confirmation may be
called more dignified from the dignity of the bishop's hand, still
should any one ask how this great prerogative was conferred on the
bishops, what reason can they give but their own caprice? The right
was used only by the apostles, who alone dispensed the Holy spirit.
Are bishops alone apostles? Are they apostles at all? However, let us
grant this also; why do they not, on the same grounds, maintain that
the sacrament of blood in the Lord's Supper is to be touched only by
bishops? Their reason for refusing it to take is that it was given by
our Lord to the apostles only. If to the apostles only, why not infer
then to bishops only? But in that place, they make the apostles
simple Presbyters whereas here another vertigo seizes them, and they
suddenly elect them bishops. Lastly, Ananias was not an apostle, and
yet Paul was sent to him to receive his sight, to be baptised and
filled with the Holy Spirit, (Acts 9: 17.) I will add, though
cumulatively, if, by divine right, this office was peculiar to
bishops, why have they dared to transfer it to plebeian Presbyters,
as we read in one of the Epistles of Gregory? (Dist. 95, cap.
Pervenis.)

11. How frivolous, inept, and
stolid the other reasons that their confirmation is worthier than the
baptism of God, because in confirmation it is the forehead that is
besmeared with oil, and in baptism the cranium. As if baptism were
performed with oil, and not with water. I take all the pious to
witness whether it be not the one aim of these miscreants to
adulterate the purity of the sacraments by their leaven. I have said
elsewhere, that what is of God in the sacraments, can scarcely be got
a glimpse of among the crowd of human inventions. If any did not then
give me credit for the fact, let them now give it to their own
teachers. Here, passing over water, and making it of no estimation,
they set a great value on oil alone in baptism. We maintain, against
them that in baptism also the forehead is sprinkled with water, in
comparison with which, we do not value your oil one straw, whether in
baptism or in confirmation. But if any one alleges that oil is sold
for more, I answer, that by this accession of value any good which
might otherwise be in it is vitiated, so far is it from being lawful
fraudulently to vend this most vile imposture. They betray their
impiety by the third reason, when they pretend that a greater
increase of virtue is conferred in confirmation than in baptism. By
the laying on of hands the apostles dispensed the visible gifts of
the Spirit. In what respect does the oil of these men prove its
fecundity? But have done with these guides, who cover one sacrilege
with many acts of sacrilege. It is a Gordian knot, which it is better
to cut than to lose so much labour in untying.

12. When they see that the word
of God, and every thing like plausible argument, fail them, they
pretend, as usual, that the observance is of the highest antiquity,
and is confirmed by the consent of many ages. Even were this true,
they gain nothing by it. A sacrament is not of earth, but of heaven;
not of men, but of God only. They must prove God to be the author of
their confirmation, if they would have it to be regarded as a
sacrament. But why obtrude antiquity, seeing that ancient writers,
whenever they would speak precisely, nowhere mention more than two
sacraments? Were the bulwark of our faith to be sought from men, we
have an impregnable citadel in this, that the fictitious sacraments
of these men were never recognised as sacraments by ancient writers.
They speak of the laying on of hands, but do they call it a
sacrament? Augustine distinctly affirms that it is nothing, but
prayer, (De Bapt. cont. Donat. Lib. 3 cap. 16.) Let them not here
yelp out one of their vile distinctions, that the laying on of hands
to which Augustine referred was not the confirmatory, but the
curative or reconciliatory. His book is extant and in men's hands; if
I wrest it to any meaning different from that which Augustine himself
wrote it, they are welcome not only to load me with reproaches after
their wonted manner, but to spit upon me. He is speaking of those who
returned from schism to the amity of the Church. He says that they
have no need of a repetition of baptism, for the laying on of hands
is sufficient, that the Lord may bestow the Holy Spirit upon them by
the bond of peace. But as it might seem absurd to repeat laying on of
hands more than baptism, he shows the difference. - "What," he asks,
"is the laying on of hands but prayer over the man?" That this is his
meaning is apparent from another passages where he says, "Because of
the bond of charity, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit, without which all the other holy
qualities which a man may possess are ineffectual for salvation, the
hand is laid on reformed heretics," (Lib. 5 cap. 23.)

13. I wish we could retain the
custom, which as I have observed, existed in the early Church, before
this abortive mask of a sacrament appeared. It would not be such a
confirmation as they pretend, one which cannot even be named without
injury to baptism, but catechising by which those in boyhood, or
immediately beyond it, would give an account of their faith in the
face of the Church. And the best method of catechising would be, if a
form were drawn up for this purpose, containing, and briefly
explaining, the substance of almost all the heads of our religion, in
which the whole body of the faithful ought to concur without
controversy. A boy of ten years of age would present himself to the
Church, to make a profession of faith, would be questioned on each
head, and give answers to each. If he was ignorant of any point, or
did not well understand it, he would be taught. Thus while the whole
Church looked on and witnessed, he would profess the one true sincere
faith with which the body of the faithful, with one accord, worship
one God. Were this discipline in force in the present day, it would
undoubtedly whet the sluggishness of certain parents, who carelessly
neglect the instruction of their children, as if it did not at all
belong to them, but who could not then omit it without public
disgrace; there would be greater agreement in faith among the
Christian people, and not so much ignorance and rudeness; some
persons would not be so readily carried away by new and strange
dogmas; in fine, it would furnish all with a methodical arrangement
of Christian doctrine.

14. The next place they give to
Penitence of which they discourse so confusedly and unmethodically,
that consciences cannot derive anything certain or solid from their
doctrine. In another place, (Book 3 chap. 3 and 4) we have explained
at length, first, what the Scriptures teach concerning repentance,
and, secondly, what these men teach concerning it. All we leave now
to advert to is the grounds of that opinion of it as a sacrament
which has long prevailed in schools and churches. First, however, I
will speak briefly of the rite of the early Church, which those men
have used as a pretext for establishing their fiction. By the order
observed in public repentance, those who had performed the
satisfactions imposed upon them were reconciled by the formal laying
on of hands. This was the symbol of absolution by which the sinner
himself regained his confidence of pardon before God, and the Church
was admonished to lay aside the remembrance of the offence, and
kindly receive him into favour. This Cyprian often terms "to give
peace". In order that the act might have more weight and estimation
with the people, it was appointed that the authority of the bishop
should always be interposed. Hence the decree of the second Council
of Carthage, "No presbyter may publicly at mass reconcile a
penitent;" and another, of the Council of Arausica, "Let those who
are departing this life, at the time of penitence, be admitted to
communion without the reconciliatory laying on of hands; if they
recover from the disease, let them stand in the order of penitents,
and after they have fulfilled their time, receive the reconciliatory
laying on of hands from the bishop." Again, in the third Council of
Carthage, "A presbyter may not reconcile a penitent without the
authority of the bishop." The object of all these enactments was to
prevent the strictness, which they wished to be observed in that
matter, from being lost by excessive laxity. Accordingly, they wished
cognisance to be taken by the bishop, who, it was probable, would be
more circumspect in examining. Although Cyprian somewhere says that
not the bishop only laid hands, but also the whole clergy. For he
thus speaks, "They do penitence for a proper time; next they come to
communion, and receive the right of communion by the laving on of the
hands of the bishop and clergy," (Lib. 3 Ep. 14.) Afterwards in
process of time, the matter came to this, that they used the ceremony
in private absolutions also without public penitence. Hence the
distinction in Gratian (Decret. 26, Quest. 6) between public and
private reconciliation. I consider that ancient observance of which
Cyprian speaks to have been holy and salutary to the Church, and I
could wish it restored in the present day. The more modern form,
though I dare not disapprove, or at least strongly condemn, I deem to
be less necessary. Be this as it may, we see that the laying on of
hands in penitence was a ceremony ordained by men, not by God, and is
to be ranked among indifferent things, and external exercises, which
indeed are not to be despised, but occupy an inferior place to those
which have been recommended to us by the word of the Lord.

15. The Romanists and
Schoolmen, whose wont it is to corrupt all things by erroneous
interpretation, anxiously labour to find a sacrament here, and it
cannot seem wonderful, for they seek a thing where it is not. At
best, they leave the matter involved, undecided, uncertain, confused,
and confounded by the variety of opinions. Accordingly, they say,
(Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 22, cap. 3,) either that external penitence is a
sacrament, and, if so, ought to he regarded as a sign of internal
penitence; i. e., contrition of heart, which will be the matter of
the sacrament, or that both together make a sacrament, not two, but
one complete; but that the external is the sacrament merely, the
internal, the matter, and the sacrament, whereas the forgiveness of
sins is the matter only, and not the sacrament. Let those who
remember the definition of a sacrament, which we have given above,
test by it that which they say is a sacrament, and it will be found
that it is not an external ceremony appointed by God for the
confirmation of our faith. But if they allege that my definition is
not a law which they are necessarily bound to obey, let them hear
Augustine whom they pretend to regard as a saint. "Visible sacraments
were instituted for the sake of carnal men, that by the ladder of
sacraments they may be conveyed from those things which are seen by
the eye, to those which are perceived by the understanding," (August.
Quaest. Vet. Test. Lib. 3.) Do they themselves see, or can they show
to others, any thing like this in that which they call the sacrament
of penance? In another passage, he says, "It is called a sacrament,
because in it one thing is seen, another thing is understood. What is
seen has bodily appearance, what is understood has spiritual fruit,"
(Serm. de Bapt. Infant.) These things in no way apply to the
sacrament of penance, as they feign it; there, there is no bodily
form to represent spiritual fruit.

16. And (to despatch these
beasts in their own arena) if any sacrament is sought here, would it
not have been much more plausible to maintain that the absolution of
the priest is a sacrament, than penitence either external or
internal? For it might obviously have been said that it is a ceremony
to confirm our faith in the forgiveness of sins, and that it has the
promise of the keys, as they describe them; "Whatsoever ye shall bind
or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven." But some one
will object that to most of those who are absolved by priests,
nothing of the kind is given by the absolution, whereas according to
their dogma, the sacraments of the new dispensation ought to effect
what they figure. This is ridiculous. As in the eucharist, they make
out a twofold eating, a sacramental, which is common to the good and
the bad alike, and a spiritual, which is proper only to the good, why
should they not also pretend that absolution is given in two ways?
And yet I have never been able to understand what they meant by their
dogma. How much it is at variance with the truth of God, we showed
when we formally discussed that subject. Here I only wish to show
that no scruple should prevent them from giving the name of a
sacrament to the absolution of the priest. For they might have
answered by the mouth of Augustine, that there is a sanctification
without a visible sacrament, and a visible sacrament without internal
sanctification. Again, that in the elect alone, sacraments effect
what they figure. Again, that some put on Christ so far as the
receiving of the sacrament, and others so far as sanctification; that
the former is done equally by the good and the bad, the latter by the
good only. Surely they were more deluded than children, and blind in
the full light of the sun, when they toiled with so much difficulty,
and perceived not a matter so plain and obvious to every man.

17. Lest they become elated,
however, whatever be the part in which they place the sacrament, I
deny that it can justly be regarded as a sacrament; first, because
there exists not to this effect any special promise of God, which is
the only ground of a sacrament; and, secondly, because whatever
ceremony is here used is a mere intention of man; whereas, as has
already been shown, the ceremonies of sacraments can only be
appointed by God. Their fiction of the sacrament of penance,
therefore, was falsehood and imposture. This fictitious sacrament
they adorned with the befitting eulogium, that it was the second
plank in the case of shipwreck, because, if any one had, by sin,
injured the garment of innocence received in baptism, he might repair
it by penitence. This was a saying of Jerome. Let it be whose it may,
as it is plainly impious, it cannot be excused if understood in this
sense; as if baptism were effaced by sin, and were not rather to be
recalled to the mind of the sinner whenever he thinks of the
forgiveness of sins, that he may thereby recollect himself, regain
courage, and be confirmed in the belief that he shall obtain the
forgiveness of sins which was promised him in baptism.

What Jerome said harshly and
improperly, viz., that baptism, which is fallen from by those who deserve to be
excommunicated from the Church, is repaired by penitence, these
worthy expositors wrest to their own impiety.

You will speak most correctly,
therefore, if you call baptism the sacrament of penitence, seeing it
is given to those who aim at repentance to confirm their faith and
seal their confidence.

But lest you should
think this our
invention, it appears
that besides being conformable to the words of Scripture, it was
generally regarded in the early Church as an indubitable axiom. For in the short Treatise on Faith
addressed to Peter, and bearing the name of Augustine, it is called,
The sacrament of faith
and repentance. But why
have recourse to doubtful writings, as if any thing can be required
more distinct than the statement of the Evangelist, that John
preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?" (Mark
1: 1; Luke 3: 3.)

Of extreme unction, so
called.

18. The third fictitious
sacrament is Extreme Unction, which is performed only by a priest,
and, as they express it, in extremis, with oil consecrated by the
bishop, and with this form of words, "By this holy unction, and his
most tender mercy, may God forgive you whatever sin you have
committed, by the eye, the ear, the smell, the touch, the taste,"
(see Calv. Epist. de Fugiend. Illicit. Sac.) They pretend that there
are two virtues in it - the forgiveness of sins, and relief of bodily
disease, if so expedient; if not expedient, the salvation of the
soul. For they say, that the institution was set down by James, whose
words are, "Is any sick among you? let him send for the elders of the
Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the
name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and
the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins they shall
be forgiven him" (James 5: 14.) The same account is here to be given
of this unction as we lately gave of the laying on of hands; in other
words it is mere hypocritical stage-play, by which, without reason or
result, they would resemble the apostles. Mark relates that the
apostles, on their first mission, agreeably to the command which they
had received of the Lord, raised the dead, cast out devils, cleansed
lepers, healed the sick, and, in healing, used oil. He says, they
"anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them," (Mark 6:
13.) To this James referred when he ordered the presbyters of the
Church to be called to anoint the sick. That no deeper mystery lay
under this ceremony will easily be perceived by those who consider
how great liberty both our Lord and his apostles used in those
external things. Our Lord, when about to give sight to the blind man,
spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle; some he cured by a
touch, others by a word. In like manner the apostles cured some
diseases by word only, others by touch, others by anointing. But it
is probable that neither this anointing nor any of the other things
were used at random. I admit this; not, however, that they were
instruments of the cure, but only symbols to remind the ignorant
whence this great virtue proceeded, and prevent them from ascribing
the praise to the apostles. To designate the Holy Spirit and his
gifts by oil is trite and common, (Ps. 45: 8.) But the gift of
healing disappeared with the other miraculous powers which the Lord
was pleased to give for a time, that it might render the new
preaching of the gospel for ever wonderful. Therefore, even were we
to grant that anointing was a sacrament of those powers which were
then administered by the hands of the apostles, it pertains not to
us, to whom no such powers have been committed.

19. And what better reason have
they for making a sacrament of this unction, than of any of the other
symbols which are mentioned in Scripture? Why do they not dedicate
some pool of Siloam, into which, at certain seasons, the sick may
plunge themselves? That, they say, were done in vain. Certainly not
more in vain than unction Why do they not lay themselves on the dead,
seeing that Paul, in raising up the dead youth, lay upon him? Why is
not clay made of dust and spittle a sacrament? The other cases were
special, but this is commanded by James. In other words, James spake
agreeably to the time when the Church still enjoyed this blessing
from God. They affirm, indeed, that there is still the same virtue in
their unction, but we experience differently. Let no man now wonder
that they have with so much confidence deluded souls, which they knew
to be stupid and blind, because deprived of the word of God, that is,
of his light and life, seeing they blush not to attempt to deceive
the bodily perceptions of those who are alive, and have all their
senses about them. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore, by
pretending that they are endued with the gift of healing. The Lord,
doubtless, is present with his people in all ages, and cures their
sicknesses as often as there is need, not less than formerly; and yet
he does not exert those manifest powers, nor dispense miracles by the
hands of apostles, because that gift was temporary, and owing, in
some measure, to the ingratitude of men, immediately ceased.

20. Wherefore, as the apostles,
not without cause, openly declared, by the symbol of oil, that the
gift of healing committed to them was not their own, but the power of
the Holy Spirit; so, on the other hand, these men insult the Holy
Spirit by making his power consist in a filthy oil of no efficacy. It
is just as if one were to say that all oil is the power of the Holy
Spirit, because it is called by that name in Scripture, and that
every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared in that form. Let
them see to this: it is sufficient for us that we perceive, with
absolute certainty, that their unction is no sacrament, as it is
neither a ceremony appointed by God, nor has any promise. For when we
require, in a sacrament, these two things, that it be a ceremony
appointed by God, and have a promise from God, we at the same time
demand that that ceremony be delivered to us, and that that promise
have reference to us. No man contends that circumcision is now a
sacrament of the Christian Church, although it was both an ordinance
of God, and had his promise annexed to it, because it was neither
commanded to us, nor was the promise annexed to it given us on the
same condition. The promise of which they vaunt so much in unction,
as we have clearly demonstrated, and they themselves show by
experience, has not been given to us. The ceremony behaved to be used
only by those who had been endued with the gift of healing, not by
those murderers who do more by slaying and butchering than by
curing.

21. Even were it granted that
this precept of unction, which has nothing to do with the present
age, were perfectly adapted to it, they will not even thus have
advanced much in support of their unction, with which they have
hitherto besmeared us. James would have all the sick to be anointed:
these men besmear, with their oil, not the sick, but half-dead
carcasses, when life is quivering on the lips, or, as they say, in
extremis. If they have a present cure in their sacrament, with which
they can either alleviate the bitterness of disease, or at least give
some solace to the soul, they are cruel in never curing in time.
James would have the sick man to be anointed by the elders of the
Church. They admit no anointer but a priestling. When they interpret
the elders of James to be priests, and allege that the plural number
is used for honour, the thing is absurd; as if the Church had at that
time abounded with swarms of priests, so that they could set out in
long procession, bearing a dish of sacred oil. James, in ordering
simply that the sick be anointed, seems to me to mean no other
anointing than that of common oil, nor is any other mentioned in the
narrative of Mark. These men deign not to use any oil but that which
has been consecrated by a bishop, that is warmed with much breath,
charmed by much muttering, and saluted nine times on bended knee,
Thrice Hail, holy oil! thrice Hail, holy chrism! thrice Hail, holy
balsam!

From whom did they derive these
exorcisms? James says, that when the sick man shall have been
anointed with oil, and prayer shall have been made over him if he
have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him, viz., that his guilt
being forgiven, he shall obtain a mitigation of the punishment, not
meaning that sins are effaced by oil, but that the prayers by which believers commended their afflicted brother
to God would not be in vain.

These men are impiously false
in saying that sins are forgiven by their sacred, that is, abominable
unction. See how little they gain, even when they are allowed to
abuse the passage of James as they list. And to save us the trouble
of a laborious proof, their own annals relieve us from all
difficulty; for they relate that Pope Innocent, who presided over the
church of Rome in the age of Augustine, ordained, that not elders
only but all Christians, should use oil in anointing, in their own
necessity, or in that of their friends. Our authority for this is
Sigebert, in his Chronicles.

Of Ecclesiastical
Orders.

22. The fourth place in their
catalogue is held by the sacrament of Orders, one so prolific, as to
beget of itself seven lesser sacraments. It is very ridiculous that
after affirming that there are seven sacraments, when they begin to
count, they make out thirteen. It cannot be alleged that they are one
sacrament, because they all tend to one priesthood, and are a kind of
steps to the same thing. For while it is certain that the ceremonies
in each are different, and they themselves say that the graces are
different, no man can doubt that if their dogmas are admitted, they
ought to be called seven sacraments. And why debate it as a doubtful
matter, when they themselves plainly and distinctly declare that they
are seven? First, then we shall glance at them in passing, and show
to how many absurdities they introduce us when they would recommend
their orders to us as sacraments; and, secondly, we shall see whether
the ceremony which churches use in ordaining ministers ought at all
to be called a sacrament. They make seven ecclesiastical orders, or
degrees, which they distinguish by the title of a sacrament.

These are, Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes, Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests. And they say that they are seven, because of the
seven kinds of graces of the Holy Spirit with which those who are
promoted to them ought to be endued. This grace is increased and more
liberally accumulated on promotion. The mere number has been
consecrated by a perversion of Scripture, because they think they
read in Isaiah that there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, whereas
truly not more than six are mentioned by Isaiah who, however, meant
not to include all in that passage. For, in other passages are
mentioned the spirit of life, of sanctification, of the adoption of
sons, as well as there, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the
spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear
of the Lord. Although others who are more acute make not seven
orders, but nine, in imitation, as they say, of the Church
triumphant. But among theses also, there is a contest; because some
insist that the clerical tonsure is the first order of all, and the
episcopates the last; while others, excluding the tonsure, class the
office of archbishop among the orders. Isiodorus distinguishes
differently, for he makes Psalmists and Readers
different.

To the former, he gives the
charge of
chanting, to the
latter, that of reading
the Scriptures for the instruction of the common people.

And this distinction is
observed by the canons. In this great variety, what would they have
us to follow or to avoid? Shall we, say that there are seven orders?
So the master of the school teaches, but the most illuminated doctors
determine otherwise. On the other hand, they are at variance among
themselves. Besides, the most sacred canons call us in a different
direction. Such, indeed, is the concord of men when they discuss
divine things apart from the word of God.

23. But the crowning folly of
all is, that in each of these they make Christ their colleague.
First, they say, he performed the office of Doorkeeper when, with a
whip of small cords he drove the buyers and sellers from the temple.
He intimates that he is a Doorkeeper when he says, "I am the door."
He assumed the office of Reader,
when he read Isaiah in the synagogue. He performed the office of Exorcist when, touching the tongue and ears of
the deaf and dumb man with spittle, he restored his hearing. He
declared that he was an Acolyte by the words, "He that followeth me
shall not walk in darkness." He performed the office of Subdeacon,
when, girding himself with a towel, he washed the feet of his
disciples. He acted the part of a Deacon, when he distributed his
body and blood in the Supper. He performed the part of a Priest,
when, on the cross, he offered himself in sacrifice to the Father. As
these things cannot be heard without laughter, I wonder how they
could have been written without laughter, if, indeed, they were men
who wrote them.

But their most
notable subtlety is that in which they speculate on the name of
Acolyte, calling him Ceroferarius, a magical term, I presume, one certainly unknown to all nations and
tongues; "akolouthos", in Greek, meaning simply attendant. Were I to stop and seriously refute these things, I
might myself justly be laughed at, so frivolous are they and
ludicrous.

24. Still, lest they should be
able to impose on silly
women, their vanity
must be exposed in passing.

With great pomp and solemnity
they elect their readers, psalmists, doorkeepers, acolytes, to perform those services which they give in
charge, either to boys,
or at least to those whom they call laics.

Who, for the most part,
lights the tapers,
who pours wine and water from the pitcher, but a boy or some mean
person among laics, who gains his bread by so doing?

Do not the same persons chant? Do they not open and shut the doors of churches? Who ever saw, in their
churches, either an acolyte or doorkeeper performing his office? Nay,
when he who as a boy performed the office of acolyte, is admitted to
the order of acolyte, he ceases to be the very thing he begins to be
called, so that they seem professedly to wish to cast away the office
when they assume the title.

See why they hold it
necessary to be consecrated by sacraments, and to receive the Holy
Spirit! It is just to do nothing.

If they pretend that this is
the defect of the times, because they neglect and abandon their
offices, let them, at the same time, confess that there is not in the
Church, in the present day, any use or benefit of these sacred orders
which they wondrously extol, and that their whole Church is full of
anathema, since the tapers and flagons, which none are worthy to
touch but those who have been consecrated acolytes,

she allows to be
handled by
boys and
profane
persons; since
her
chants, which ought to
be heard only from consecrated lips, she delegates to children.

And to what end, pray, do they
consecrate
exorcists?

I hear that the Jews had their exorcists, but I see they were so called from the exorcisms
which they practised, (Acts 19: 13.) Who ever heard of those
fictitious
exorcists having given
one specimen of their profession?

Iamblichus.html

THE MUSIC AT THE ARCANE RITES.

In addition to these things
you remark as follows: "So also certain others of these
ecstatics
become entheast or inspired when they hearcymbals, drums, or some
choral chant, 21 as, for example, those who are engaged in the
Korybantic
Rites, 22 those who are possessed at the Sabazian festival and
those who are celebrating the Rites of
the Divine Mother."23

There is evidently a deeper meaning in all this
than is commonly apprehended.

Note 21. Some exhibition
of this kind is described by the Apostle Paul in the first Epistle to
the Corinthians. "If," says he, "the whole assembly come together to
the same place and all prattle in tongues, and common men should come in, or unbelievers, will
they not say that you are raving?"

Hence he counsels that only two
or three should speak in turn, and one interpret; but if nobody
present is capable of this, they should keep silence, and speak only
to themselves and to God:

"for not of tumult
is he a god, but of tranquillity." (Ovid; Fasti IV,

"The attendants beat the brass, and the hoarse-sounding hides. Cymbals
they strike in place of helmets, tambourines for the shields; the pipe yielded its Phrygian notes.")

Note 23. Sabazios

Note 22. The Korybantes are variously described.
Their cult was identified or closely allied to that of the
Kabeirian
divinities, and that of the Great Mother. It was celebrated in the
islands of the Aegean Sea and in Phygia. Music, dancing, processions, and
ecstatic frenzy were characteristics.

Note 23. Sabazios, Sabaoth, or
Sabbat, the god of the Planet
Saturn, was better known as
Bacchus or
Dionysos,
and was also styled in Semitic countries, Iao or Yava. His worship was more
or less associated and identified with that of the Great Mother, under
various designations, and it was characterized by phallephoric
[carrying the penis]processions,
dances,
mourning for the slain divinity, and the Watch Night. It came from
Assyria as its peculiar symbols, the ivy or kissos, the spotted robe
or Nimr, and the Thyrso, indicate.

6. The
Chaldæans call the God Dionysos (or Bacchus), Iao in the Phoenician tongue (instead
of the Intelligible Light), and he is also called Sabaoth, [1] signifying that he is above the Seven poles,
that is the Demiurgos.

There is another hieroglyphic
connected with Bacchus
that goes not a little to confirm this--that is, the Ivy branch. No emblem was more distinctive of the
worship of Bacchus than this. Wherever the rites of Bacchus were performed, wherever his orgies
were celebrated, the Ivy branch was sure to appear. Ivy, in some form
or other, was essential to these celebrations. The votaries carried
it in their hands,

bound it around
their heads, or had the
Ivy leaf even indelibly stamped upon their persons.

What could be the use, what
could be the meaning of this? A few words will suffice to show it. In
the first place, then, we have evidence that Kissos, the Greek name for Ivy,
was one of the names
of Bacchus; and further, that though the name of
Cush, in its proper form, was known to the
priests in the Mysteries, yet that the established way in which the name of
his descendants, the Cushites, was ordinarily pronounced in Greece, was not after
the Oriental fashion, but as "Kissaioi," or "Kissioi."

Thus, Strabo, speaking of the
inhabitants of Susa, who were the people of Chusistan, or the ancient
land of Cush, says: "The Susians are called Kissioi," * --that is
beyond all question, Cushites.

* STRABO. In Hesychius, the
name is Kissaioi. The epithet applied to the land of Cush in
Aeschylus is Kissinos. The above accounts for one of the unexplained
titles of Apollo.
"Kisseus
Apollon" is plainly
"The Cushite
Apollo.

or again, the name
may refer to his musical
attributes, and then,
as in akolouthos, and akoitis, and in many other words the a is supposed to mean
"together," so the meaning of the name Apollo will be
"moving
together,"

whether in the poles of heaven as they are
called, or in the harmony
of song, which is termed concord,

because he moves all together
by an harmonious power, as astronomers and musicians ingeniously declare.

And he is the God who
presides over
harmony, and makes all
things move together, both among Gods and among men. And as in the
words akolouthos and akoitis
the a is substituted for an o, so the name Apollon
is equivalent to omopolon; only the second l is added in order to avoid the
ill-omened sound of destruction (apolon).

Now the suspicion of this
destructive power still haunts the minds of some who do not consider
the true value of the name, which, as I was saying just now, has
reference to all the powers of the God, who is the single one, the
everdarting, the purifier, the mover together (aplous, aei Ballon,
apolouon, omopolon).

The name of the Muses and of music
would seem to be derived from their making philosophical enquiries (mosthai);

and Leto is called by this name, because she is such a gentle
Goddess, and so willing (ethelemon) to grant our requests; or her
name may be Letho, as she is often called by strangers- they seem to
imply by it her amiability, and her smooth and easy-going way of
behaving.

Artemis is named from her
healthy (artemes), well-ordered nature, and because of her love of
virginity, perhaps because she is a proficient in virtue (arete), and
perhaps also as hating intercourse of the sexes (ton aroton miseasa).
He who gave the Goddess her name may have had any or all of these
reasons.

It is proper, accordingly, to tell the causes
of these things, how they came into existence, and what explanation
there is for the performing of the Rites.

These allusions which you make, namely, that
the music
at these festivals is exciting and
passionate;

that the sound of the flutes causes
or heals conditions of aberration; that the music changes the
temperaments or dispositions of the
body;
that by some of the choral songs the Bacchic frenzy is excited,
but by others the Bacchicorgies are made to
cease;

how the peculiar differences of these accord
with the various dispositions of the soul, and also that the peculiar
wavering
and variable choric
chants, such as those of Olympus, and
others of the same kind., are adapted to the producing of ecstasies 24
-- all of them seem to me to be stated in a manner unfavorable to the
entheast
condition; for they are both physical and human in their quality and
performances, according to our technic, but nothing
essentially divine appears in them.

24. Proclus declared that the
choral songs of Olympus were adapted to
produce
ecstasy.
Plato
describes an audience in Ion, comparing it to a series of iron rings connected by
a chain and moved by the lodestone: "Some hand from one
Muse and some from another," he remarks,
"some, for example, from Orpheus, others from Mussios, but the
greater part are inspired by Homer and are held fast by him."

We affirm, accordingly, not only that the
shoutings
and choric songs are sacred to the gods, each and all of them, as being
peculiarly their own, but likewise that there is a kindred
relationship between them in their proper order, according to their
respective ranks and powers, the motions in the universe itself and
the harmonious sounds emitted from the motions By the agency of such
a relationship of the choric songs to
the gods

it is that their presence actually
becomes manifest, for there is nothing
intervening; and hence whatever has a
mere incidental resemblance to them becomes immediately participant
of them.

There also takes place at once a perfect
possession and filling with the
divine essence and power.

Nor is this because the body and soul are in
each other, and affected alike in sympathy with the songs; but, on the
contrary,

it is because the inspiration of
the gods is not separated from the
divine harmony, and being allied with
it, as being of the same kindred, it is shared by it in just
measures.

It is, however, aroused or checked, one or
the other, according to the specific rank of the
gods.

But this is never by any means to be
termed a separating, purifying, or a remedy.

For, first of all, it is not dispensed on
account of any disease or excess or plethora in us, but the
whole beginning and course of operation are from the gods above.

It is pretended that power has
been given them to lay their hands on energumens, catechumens, and
demoniacs, but they cannot persuade demons that they are endued with
such power, not only because demons do not submit to their orders,
but even command themselves. Scarcely will you find one in ten who is
not possessed by a wicked spirit. All, then, which they babble about
their paltry orders is a compound of ignorant and stupid falsehoods.
Of the ancient acolytes, doorkeepers, and readers, we have spoken
when explaining the government of the Church.

All that we here proposed was
to combat that novelinvention of a sevenfold
sacrament in
ecclesiastical orders,
of which we nowhere read except among sillyraving Sorbonnists and Canonists.

25. Let us now attend to the
ceremonies which they employ. And first, all whom they enrol among
their militia they initiate into the clerical status by a common
symbol. They shave them on the top of the head, that the crown may
denote regal honour, because clergy ought to be kings in governing
themselves and others. Peter thus speaks of them: "Ye are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people," (1
Pet. 2: 9.)

But it was sacrilege in them to arrogate to themselves alone what is given to the whole Church, and proudly to glory in a
title of which they had robbed the faithful.

Peter addresses the whole
Church: these men wrest
it to a few shaven
crowns, as if it had
been said to them alone, Be ye holy:

as if they alone
had been purchased by the blood of Christ:
as if they alone had been made
by Christ kings and priests unto God.

Then they assign other reasons,
(Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 24.) The top of the head is bared, that their
mind may be shown to be free, with unveiled face, to behold the glory
of God; or that they may be taught to cut off the vices of the eye
and the lip. Or the shaving of the head is the laying aside of
temporal things, while the circumference of the crown is the remnants
of good which are retained for support. Everything is in figure,
because, forsooth, the veil of the temple is not yet rent.
Accordingly, persuaded that they have excellently performed their
part because they have figured such things by their crown, they
perform none of them in reality. How long will they delude us with
such masks and impostures? The clergy, by shaving off some hair,
intimate (Sent. loco cit.) that they have cast away abundance of
temporal good - that they contemplate the glory of God - that they
have mortified the concupiscence of the ear and the eye: but no class
of men is more rapacious, more stupid, more libidinous. Why do they
not rather exhibit true sanctity, than give a hypocritical semblance
of it in false and lying signs?

26. Moreover, when they say
that the clerical crown has its origin and nature from the
Nazarene, what else do they say than that their
mysteries are derived from Jewish ceremonies, or rather are mere
Judaism? When they add that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself,
after they had taken a vow,

shaved their head
that they might be purified, they betray their gross ignorance.

For we nowhere read this of
Priscilla, While, with regard to Aquila, it is uncertain, since that
tonsure may refer equally well to Paul as to Aquila, (Acts 18: 18.)
But not to leave them in possession of what they ask, viz., that they
have an example in Paul, it is to be observed, to the more simple,
that Paul never shaved his head for any sanctification, but only in
subservience to the weakness of brethren. Vows of this kind I am
accustomed to call vows of charity not of piety: in other words, vows
not undertaken for divine worship, but only in deference to the
infirmity of the weak, as he himself says, that to the Jews he became
a Jew, (1 Cor. 9: 20.) This therefore, he did, and that once and for
a short time, that he might accommodate himself for a little to the
Jews.

When these men would, for no
end, imitate the
purifications of the Nazarene, (Num. 6: 18,) what else do they than set up a new,
while they improperly affect to rival the ancient Judaism? In the
same spirit the Decretal Epistle was composed, which enjoins the
clergy, after the apostle, not to nourish their hair, but to shave it
all round, (Cap. Prohibitur, Dist. 24;) as if the apostle, in showing
what is comely for all men, had been solicitous for the spherical
tonsure of the clergy. Hence, let my readers consider what kind of
force or dignity there can be in the subsequent mysteries, to which
this is the introduction.

27. Whence the clerical tonsure
had its origin, is abundantly clear from Augustine alone, (De Opera.
Monaco. et Retract.) While in that age none wore long hair but the
effeminate and those who affected an unmanly beauty and elegance, it
was thought to be of bad example to allow the clergy to do so. They
were therefore enjoined either to cut or shave their hair, that they
might not have the appearance of effeminate indulgence. And so common
was the practice, that some monks, to appear more sanctimonious than
others by a notable difference in dress, let their locks hang loose.
But when hair returned to use, and some nations, which had always
worn long hair, as France, Germany and England, embraced
Christianity, it is probable that the clergy everywhere shaved the
head, that they might not seem to affect ornament. At length, in a
more corrupt age, when all ancient customs were either changed, or
had degenerated into superstition, seeing no reason for the clerical
tonsure, (they had retained nothing but a foolish imitation,) they
retook themselves to mystery, and now superstitiously obtrude it upon
us in support of their sacrament.

The Doorkeepers, on
consecration, receive the keys of the Church, by which it is understood that the custody of it is committed to
them;

the readers receive the Holy Bible; the Exorcists, forms of exorcism which they use over the
possessed and catechumens; the Acolytes, tapersand the flagon.

Such are the ceremonies which,
it would seem, possess so much secret virtue, that they cannot only
be signs and badges, but even causes of invisible grace. For this,
according to their definition, they demand, when they would have them
to be classed among sacraments. But to dispatch the matter in a few
words, I say that it is absurd
for schools and canons to make sacraments of those minor orders,
since, even by the confession of those who do so, they
were unknown to the
primitive Church, and
were devised many ages after.

But sacraments as containing a
divine promise ought not to be appointed, either by angels or men,
but by God
only, to whom alone it
belongs to give the promise.

28. There remain the three
orders which they call major. Of these, what they call the subdeacon
ate was transferred to this class, after the crowd of minor began to
be prolific. But as they think they have authority for these from the
word of God, they honour them specially with the name of Holy Orders.
Let us see how they wrest the ordinances of God to their own ends. We
begin with the order of presbyter or priest. To these two names they
give one meaning, understanding by them, those to whom as they say,
it pertains to offer the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood on the
altar, to frame prayers, and bless the gifts of God. Hence, at
ordination, they receive the patena with the host, as symbols of the
power conferred upon them of offering sacrifices to appease God, and
their hands are anointed, this symbol being intended to teach that
they have received the power of consecrating. But of the ceremonies
afterwards. Of the thing itself, I say that it is so far from having,
as they pretend, one particle of support from the word of God, that
they could not more wickedly corrupt the order which he has
appointed. And first, it ought to be held as confessed, (this we
maintained when treating of the Papal Mass,) that all are injurious
to Christ who call themselves priests in the sense of offering
expiatory victims. He was constituted and consecrated Priest by the
Father, with an oath, after the order of Melchizedek, without end and
without successor, (Psalm 110: 4; Heb. 5: 6; 7: 3.) He once offered a
victim of eternal expiation and reconciliation, and now also having
entered the sanctuary of heaven, he intercedes for us. In him we all
are priests, but to offer praise and thanksgiving, in fine,
ourselves, and all that is ours to God. It was peculiar to him alone
to appease God and expiate sins by his oblation. When these men usurp
it to themselves, what follows, but that they have an impious and
sacrilegious priesthood? It is certainly wicked overmuch to dare to
distinguish it with the title of sacrament. In regard to the true office of presbyter, which
was recommended to us by the lips of Christ, I willingly give it that
place.

For in it there is a ceremony
which, first, is taken from the Scriptures; and, secondly, is
declared by Paul to be not empty or superfluous, but to be a faithful
symbol of spiritual grace, (1 Tim. 4: 14.) My reason for not giving a
place to the third is, because it is not ordinary or common to all
believers, but is a special rite for a certain function. But while
this honour is attributed to the Christian ministry, Popish priests may not plume themselves upon it.

Christ ordered
dispensers of his gospel and his sacred mysteries to be ordained, not
sacrificers to be inaugurated, and his command was to preach the
gospel and feed the flock, not to immolate victims. He promised the
gift of the Holy Spirit, not to make expiation for sins, but duly to
undertake and maintain the government of the Church, (Matth. 28: 19;
Mark 16: 15; John 21: 15.)

29. With the reality the
ceremonies perfectly agree. When our Lord commissioned the apostles
to preach the gospel, he breathed upon them, (John 20: 22.) By this
symbol he represented the gift of the Holy Spirit which he bestowed
upon them.

This breathing these worthy men have retained; and, as if
they were bringing the Holy Spirit from their throat, mutter over
their priestlings, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

Accordingly, they omit
nothing which they do not preposterously mimic. I say not in the
manner of players, (who have art and meaning in their gestures,) but
like apes who imitate at random without selection. We observe, say
they, the example of the Lord.

But the Lord did many things which he
did not intend to be examples to us. Our Lord said to his disciples,
"Receive the Holy Spirit," (John 20: 22.)
He said also to Lazarus,
"Lazarus, come forth," (John 11: 43.)
He said to the paralytic,
"Rise, take up thy bed, and walk," (John 5: 8.)

Why do they not say
the same to all the dead and paralytic?

He gave a specimen of his
divine power when, in breathing on the apostles, he filled them with
the gift of the Holy Spirit. If they attempt to do the same, they
rival God, and do all but challenge him to the contest. But they are
very far from producing the effect, and only mock Christ by that
absurd gesture.

Such, indeed, is the effrontery of some, that they
dare to assert that the Holy Spirit is conferred by them; but what
truth there is in this, we learn from experience, which cries aloud
that all who are consecrated priests, of horses become asses, and of
fools madmen. And yet it is not here that I am contending against
them; I am only condemning the ceremony itself, which ought not to be
drawn into a precedent,
since it was used as the special symbol of a
miracle,
so far is it from furnishing them with an example for
imitation.

30. But from whom, pray, did
they receive their unction?

They answer, that they received it from
the sons of Aaron, from whom also their order derived its origin,
(Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 14, cap. 8, et in Canon. Dist. 21, cap. 1.)

Thus
they constantly choose to defend themselves by perverse examples,
rather then confess that any of their rash practices is of their own
devising.

Meanwhile, they observe not that in professing to be the
successors of the sons of Aaron, they are injurious to the priesthood
of Christ, which alone was adumbrated and typified by all ancient
priesthoods.
In him, therefore, they were all concluded and
completed, in him they ceased, as we have repeatedly said, and as the
Epistle to the Hebrews, unaided by any gloss, declares.

But if they
are so much delighted with Mosaic ceremonies, why do they not hurry
oxen, calves, and lambs, to their sacrifices? They have, indeed, a
great part of the ancient tabernacle, and of the whole Jewish
worship.
The only thing wanted to their religion is, that they do not
sacrifice oxen and calves.

Who sees not that this practice of unction
is much more pernicious than circumcision, especially when to it is
added superstition and a Pharisaical opinion of the ment of the work?
The Jews placed their confidence of justification in circumcision,
these men look for spiritual gifts in unction.

Therefore, in desiring
to be rivals of the Levites,
they become apostates from Christ,
and
discard themselves from the pastoral office.

31. It is, if you please, the
sacred oil which impresses an indelible character. As if oil could
not be washed away by sand and salt, or if it sticks the closer, with
soap. But that character is spiritual. What has oil to do with the
soul? Have they forgotten what they quote from Augustine, that if the
word be withdrawn from the water, there will be nothing but water,
but that it is owing to the word that it is a sacrament? What word
can they show in their oil? Is it because Moses was commanded to
anoint the sons of Aaron? (Exod. 30: 30.) But he there receives
command concerning the tunic, the ephod, the breastsplate, the mitre,
the crown of holiness with which Aaron was to be adorned; and
concerning the tunics, belts, and mitres which his sons were to wear.
He receives command about sacrificing the calf, burning its fat,
about cutting and burning rams about sanctifying earrings and
vestments with the blood of one of the rams, and innumerable other
observances. Having passed over all these, I wonder why the unction
of oil a!one pleases them. If they delight in being sprillkled, why
are they sprinkled with oil rather than with blood? They are
attempting, forsooth, an ingenious device; they are trying, by a kind
of patchwork, to make one religion out of Christianity, Judaism, and
Paganism. Their unction, therefore, is without savor; it wants salt,
that is, the word of God. There remains the laying on of hands which,
though I admit it to be a sacrament in true and legitimate
ordination, I do deny to have any such place in this fable, where
they neither obey the command of Christ, nor look to the end to which
the promise ought to lead us. If they would not have the sign denied
them, they must adapt it to the reality to which it is
dedicated.

32. As to the order of the
diaconate, I would raise no dispute, if the office which existed
under the apostles, and a purer Church, were restored to its
integrity. But what resemblance to it do we see in their fictitious
deacons? I speak not of the men, lest they should complain that I am
unjustly judging their doctrine by the vices of those who profess it;
but I contend that those whom their doctrine declares to us, derive
no countenance from those deacons whom the apostolic Church
appointed. They say that it belongs to their deacons to assist the
priests, and minister at all the things which are done in the
sacraments, as in baptism, in chrism, the patena, and chalice, to
bring the offerings and lay them on the altar, to prepare and dress
the table of the Lord, to carry the cross, announce and read out the
gospel and epistle to the people, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 24, cap. 8;
Item, Cap. Perlectis,Dist. 25.) Is there here one word about the true
office of deacon? Let us now attend to the appointment. The bishop
alone lays hands on the deacon who is ordained; he places the prayer
book and stole upon his left shoulder, that he may understand that he
has received the easy yoke of the Lord, in order that he may subject
to the fear of the Lord every thing pertaining to the left side: he
gives him a text of the gospel, to remind him that he is its herald.
What have these things to do with deacons? But they act just as if
one were to say he was ordaining apostles, when he was only
appointing persons to kindle the incense, clean the images, sweep the
churches, set traps for mice, and put out dogs. Who can allow this
class of men to be called apostles, and to be compared with the very
apostles of Christ? After this, let them not pretend that those whom
they appoint to mere stage-play are deacons. Nay, they even declare,
by the very name, what the nature of the office is. For they call
them Levites, and wish to trace their nature and origin to the sons
of Levi. As far as I am concerned, they are welcome, provided they do
not afterwards deck themselves in borrowed feathers.

33. What use is there in
speaking of subdeacons? For, whereas in fact they anciently had the
charge of the poor, they attribute to them some kind of nugatory
function, as carrying the chalice and patena, the pitcher with water,
and the napkin to the altar, pouring out water for the hands, &c.
Then, by the offerings which they are said to receive and bring in,
they mean those which they swallow up, as if they had been destined
to anathema. There is an admirable correspondence between the office
and the mode of inducting to it, viz., receiving from the bishop the
patena and chalice, and from the archdeacon the pitcher with water,
the manual and trumpery of this kind. They call upon us to admit that
the Holy Spirit is included in these frivolities. What pious man
could be induced to grant this? But to have done at once, we may
conclude the same of this as of the others and there is no need to
repeat at length what has been explained above. To the modest and
docile (it is such I have undertaken to instruct,) it will be enough
that there is no sacrament of God, unless where a ceremony is shown
annexed to a promise, or rather where a promise is seen in a
ceremony. Here there is not one syllable of a certain promise, and it
is vain, therefore, to seek for a ceremony to confirm the promise. On
the other hand, we read of no ceremony appointed by God in regard to
those usages which they employ, and, therefore, there can be no
sacrament.

Of Marriage

The last of all is Marriage,
which, while all admit it to be an institution of God, no man ever
saw to be a sacrament, until the time of Gregory. And would it ever
have occurred to the mind of any sober man? It is a good and holy
ordinance of God. And agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, and
shaving, are lawful ordinances of God; but they are not sacraments.
For in a sacrament, the thing required is not only that it be a work
of God, but that it be an external ceremony appointed by God to
confirm a promise. That there is nothing of the kind in marriage,
even children can judge. But it is a sign, they say, of a sacred
thing, that is, of the spiritual union of Christ with the Church. If
by the term sign they understand a symbol set before us by God to
assure us of our faith, they wander widely from the mark. If they
mean merely a sign because it has been employed as a similitude, I
will show how acutely they reason. Paul says, "One star differeth
from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead,"
(1 Cor. 15: 41, 42.) Here is one sacrament. Christ says, "The kingdom
of heaven is like to a grain of mustard-seed," (Matth. 13: 31.) Here
is another sacrament. Again, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto
leaven," (Matth. 13: 33.) Here is a third sacrament. Isaiah says, "He
shall feed his flock like a shepherd," (Isaiah 40: 11.) Here is a
fourth sacrament. In another passage he says, "The Lord shall go
forth as a mighty man," (Isaiah 42: 13.) Here is a fifth sacrament.
And where will be the end or limit? Every thing in this way will be a
sacrament. All the parables and similitudes in Scripture will be so
many sacraments. Nay, even theft will be a sacrament, seeing it is
written, "The day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night," (1
Thess. 5: 2.) Who can tolerate the ignorant garrulity of these
sophists? I admit, indeed, that whenever we see a vine, the best
thing is to call to mind what our Saviour says, " I am the true vine,
and my Father is the husbandman." "I am the vine, ye are the
branches," (John 15: 1, 6.) And whenever we meet a shepherd with his
flock, it is good also to remember, "I am the good shepherd, and know
my sheep, and am known of mine," (John 10: 14.) But any man who would
class such similitudes with sacraments should be sent to
bedlam.

35. They adduce the words of
Paul, by which they say that the name of a sacrament is given to
marriage, "He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever
yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as
the Lord the Church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh,
and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one
flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the
Church," (Eph. 5: 28, 32.) To treat Scripture thus is to confound
heaven and earth. Paul, in order to show husbands how they ought to
love their wives, sets Christ before them as an example. As he shed
his bowels of affection for the Church, which he had espoused to
himself, so he would have every one to feel affected toward his wife.
Then he adds, "He that loveth his wife loveth himself," "even as the
Lord the Church." Moreover, to show how Christ loved the Church as
himself, nay, how he made himself one with his spouse the Church, he
applies to her what Moses relates that Adam said of himself. For
after Eve was brought into his presence, knowing that she had been
formed out of his side, he exclaimed, "This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh," (Gen. 2: 23.) That all this was spiritually
fulfilled in Christ, and in us, Paul declares when he says, that we
are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, and so one
flesh with him. At length he breaks out into the exclamation, "This
is a great mystery;" and lest any one should be misled by the
ambiguity, he says that he is not speaking of the connection between
husband and wife, but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and the
Church. And truly it is a great mystery that Christ allowed a rib to
be taken from himself, of which we might be formed; that is that when
he was strong, he was pleased to become weak, that we might be
strengthened by his strength, and should no longer live ourselves,
but he live in us, (Gal. 2: 20.)

36. The thing which misled them
was the term sacrament. But, was it right that the whole Church
should be punished for the ignorance of these men? Paul called it a
mystery. When the Latin interpreter might have abandoned this mode of
expression as uncommon to Latin ears, or converted it into "secret,"
he preferred calling it sacramentum, but in no other sense than the
Greek term "musterion" was used by Paul. Let them go now and clamour
against skill in languages, their ignorance of which leads them most
shamefully astray in a matter easy and obvious to every one. But why
do they so strongly urge the term sacrament in this one passage, and
in others pass it by with neglect? For both in the First Epistle to
Timothy, (1 Tim. 3: 9, 16,) and also in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
it is used by the Vulgate interpreter, and in every instance, for
mystery. Let us, however, pardon them this lapses, though liars ought
to have good memories. Marriage being thus recommended by the title
of a sacrament, can it be anything but vertiginous levity afterwards
to call it uncleanness, and pollution, and carnal defilement? How
absurd is it to debar priests from a sacrament? If they say that they
debar not from a sacrament but from carnal connection, they will not
thus escape me. They say that this connection is part of the
sacrament, and thereby figures the union which we have with Christ in
conformity of nature, inasmuch as it is by this connection that
husband and wife become one flesh; although some have here found two
sacraments, the one of God and the souls in bridegroom and bride,
another of Christ and the Church, in husband and wife. Be this as it
may, this connection is a sacrament from which no Christian can
lawfully be debarred, unless, indeed, the sacraments of Christians
accord so ill that they cannot stand together. There is also another
absurdity in these dogmas. They affirm that in a sacrament the gift
of the Holy Spirit is conferred; this connection they hold to be a
sacrament, and yet they deny that in it the Holy Spirit is ever
present.

37. And, that they might not
delude the Church in this matter merely, what a long series of
errors, lies, frauds, and iniquities have they appended to one error?
So that you may say they sought nothing, but a hiding-place for
abominations when they converted marriage into a sacrament. When once
they obtained this they appropriated to themselves the cognisance of
conjugal causes: as the thing was spiritual, it was not to be
intermeddled with by profane judges. Then they enacted laws by which
they confirmed their tyranny, - laws partly impious toward God,
partly fraught with injustice toward men; such as, that marriages
contracted between minors, without the consent of their parents,
should be valid; that no lawful marriages can be contracted between
relations within the seventh degree, and that such marriages if
contracted, should be dissolved. Moreover, they frame degrees of
kindred contrary to the laws of all nations and even the polity of
Moses, and enact that a husband who has repudiated an adulteress may
not marry again - that spiritual kindred cannot be joined in marriage
- that marriage cannot be celebrated from Septuagesimo to the Octaves
of Easter, three weeks before the nativity of John, nor from Advent
to Epiphany, and innumerable others which it were too tedious to
mention. We must now get out of their mire, in which our discourse
has stuck longer than our inclination. Methinks, however, that much
has been gained if I have, in some measure, deprived these asses of
their lion's skin.